Epstein Secrets

OR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM

is Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). In support of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION On August 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amount

ires the trial court to award costs to the prevailing party, and a zero award for a plaintiff deems a defendant the prevailing party. See Tacker v. Mathews, 845 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Connell v. City of Plantation, 901 So. 2d 317, 320 4 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 70, Street, Fort Lauderdale, F

inal Messa e From: "Matt Walter" To: "Nicole Moghbel" Cc CONFIDENTIAL Subject to Protective Order "Kirk Woford" "Larry Visoski" a; "Kammerer, Edward 1/4 IATS - 000563 SDNY GM_02774668 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00261308 EFTA01339936 Closing Packet

insurance MMIMr. (huPfivnvw.politico.comrstory/2017/01fiudge-block-aetna- humana-merger-234043). POLITICO. Retrieved 2017-01-23. 45. Kendall, Brent; Mathews, Anna lAhlde (2017-01-23). "Federal Judge Blocks Aetna-Humana Menge: on Antitrust Grounds" Ottps:fivivnv.yesj.comialicleVfedpralitmigeblocks-aetna-h

N.) TITLE (TYPED OR PRINTED) EDWARD JRAPPA ASSISTANT SECRETARY ( IC JAMES R. DAUTERMAN OF FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC ACTING AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR EDWARD .KAPPA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (NOT REQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OF FM RECORDING: HOWEVER. MAY BE REQUIRED BY LOCAL LAW FOR VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENT.) ORIGINAL

ibit A attached hereto. Aircraft Interest is released in full. Dated this day of November, 2003. Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation By: Name: Andrew A. Mathews Title: President 20640/ FFg W2-O314 .3(a 5-1 SDNY_GM_02756167 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00243089 EF

ten and adopted to guarantee Americans greater freedom than had been enjoyed by their ancestors who had been driven from Europe by per- secution." Edwards, 430 A.2d at 13 (Mack, J., dissenting) (quoting Carlson i Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 556, 72 S.Ct. 52 , 542, 96 L.Ed. 547reh. denied,343 U.S. 988, 72

inst public interest in the enforce- ment of that rule. New England Power Co., supra, 693 F.2d at 245; A s Nursing dr Home of Williamstown, Inc. Mathews, 548 F.2d 1077, 1080 (1st Ci , .1977). Im- portant public policy considerations dic- tated the enactment of a pretrial detention mechanism whereby

ount Conducted 8:45 AM -2 I/M Marino #82214-053, Edwards #79278-054 791 75/5 9:00 AM I/M Johnson #86885-

om 12:30 PM PM Census Conducted 1:00 PM -8 I/M Alomar #53264-069, Carbonell #86118-054, Francisco #85983- 054, Javier #86229-054, Kidd #86406-054, Mathews #79957-054, Peralta #66497-054, Sepiashvili #85956-054, 772 71/5 1:15 PM 3 I/M to SHU Williams #78640-054, Romero #74203-054, Jones #87016- 054

ount Conducted 8:45 AM -2 I/M Marino #82214-053, Edwards #79278-054 791 75/5 9:00 AM I/M Johnson #86885-0

sp 12:30 PM PM Census Conducted 1:00 PM -8 I/M Alomar #53264-069, Carbonell #86118-054, Francisco #85983- 054, Javier #86229-054, Kidd #86406-054, Mathews #79957-054, Peralta #66497-054, Sepiashvili #85956-054, 772 71/5 1:15 PM 3 I/M to SHU Williams #78640-054, Romero #74203-054, Jones #87016- 054

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone : (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G.

ess is the opportunity to be heard `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Reams v. hvin, 561 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). Here Epstein argues that he has been "deprived . . of the ability to contest numerous allegations and stipu

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only

ess is the opportunity to be heard `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Reams v. hvin, 561 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). Here Epstein argues that he has been "deprived . . of the ability to contest numerous allegations and stipu