Epstein Secrets

as a “kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right,” noting that she “believ[ed] in the victims and tr[ied] . . . to bring down Jeffrey Epstein.” Bradley J. Edwards with Brittany Henderson, Relentless Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020). 233 [M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was

ho wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing. 346 Dean, 527 F.3d at 394. 347 Before Epstein’s state court plea hearing, Edwards also began representing the victim who became Jane Doe #2. Although OPR focuses on Villafaña’s communications with Edwards in this section, OPR not

n.” 356 Villafaña stated that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

court ruled that § 921.143(l) “should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at sentencing hearings.” Smith v. State, 982 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). 272 argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim n

During this time period, Villafana and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal invest

and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and

ated in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

he court ruled that § 921.143(1) “should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at sentencing hearings.” Smith v. State. 982 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). j I 271 | CA/Aronberg-000739 FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/28/2023 2:22:44 PM

, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITION OF ALFRED SECKEL Plaintiff Jeffrey

commanding non-party Alfred Seckel to appear for deposition in Los Angeles, California on May 23, 2011 which subpoena Defendant Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") has noticed over the Plaintiffs objection. The grounds for this Motion are: I. On or about April 7, 2011, counsel to Edwards noticed the deposit

The Rule has been successfully invoked to prevent invasion of privacy of non- parties as well as to prevent the dissemination of defamatory content. Smith v. State, 827 So. 2d 1026, 1030-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)(petition for certiorari granted to protect privacy interests); see also Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary