Epstein Secrets

IBIT 16 EFTA00081180 Case 9:08-cv-807m091349pept Z91-15 _EriterM ocp WERocisstifolf/E15 Page 2 of roio-< uoc 16q0,3 e 0 EXHIBIT C Epstein vs. Edwards Undisputed Statement of Facts EFTA00081181 Case 9:08-cv-807ailaVs kigsyffigt 28415-c1p6Arger phri N 7NRocieatgfe)10/§815 Page 3 of IN THE CIRCUI

ndants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undis

and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at ¶7. Included in thi

ffidavit") (Exhibit "N"). 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, attorn

not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitaria

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. JUDGE: HAFELE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE THE JUNE 30.2017

ion for Summary Judgment, and to "exclude evidence as to which discovery was withheld under claims of privilege." As demonstrated more fully below, Edwards's Motion is deficient on its face, and in direct contravention to the facts. As such, Edwards's Motion should be denied. INTRODUCTION Epstein file

that there were other media, local media. I've been told that the -- his investigator was sent to California to harass people representing his -- Brad Edwards' investigator -- representing fictitiously, fraudulently that he was a FBI agent to try to gather information for Mr. Edwards' claims. See Depositi

sitting over their computer looking at their bank accounts. So, unfortunately, I would have to say, no, sir. Q. Have you ever personally witnessed Bradley Edwards engaged in money laundering? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Again, sir, the U.S. Attorney's Complaint of the Rothstein firm alleges money laundering

o testify in response to probative evidence offered against them...." Fraser v. Sec. & Inv. Corp., 615 So. 2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (quoting Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1976)(emphasis added)). Accordingly, the evidence in which the party is refusing to testify to mus

e commentary from Edwards, his counsel, or his witnesses, is impermissible. Any Reference to any Cases Against Epstein Which were not Prosecuted by Bradley J. Edwards. While it foreseeable that a limited amount of the information regarding Edwards's prosecution of the three cases against Epstein could potentially

Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradle . Edwards E . armer a e eissing wards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 1 Financial Plaza, Suite 2612 Fort Laude

" Finally, the law is clear that a party cannot be found liable solely upon the basis of reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924