Epstein Secrets

. the 1 more. ‘than 500 entries on the docket sheét for’ ‘Jane we + : 7 : “4 Doe’ s (consolidated) case will confirm (see-Case no. 9:08- 30119 (S.D: Fla. ): (case number. for consolidated eee Rongee : . cases on discovery), Jane Doe.and other. plaintiffs have made exhaustive attempts to, obtain inform

ey had collected regarding Epstein’s sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to provide any such information to me. The U.S. Attorney’s Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein’s sexual assaults. I was informed that

ROCEEDINGS Deposition taken before Cynthia Hopkins, Registered Professional Reporter and Florida Professional Reporter, and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, in the above cause. and JACK. ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Pal

response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 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 utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the conseque

ards also requested from the U.S. Attorney’s Office the information that they had collected regarding Epstein’s sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, declined to provide any such information to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who represen

hat the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney’s Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the c

the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecut