Epstein Secrets

hich this Court should reject. The trial court specifically found, "I'm not finding fault with anything you [Scott Link] or Miss Rockenbach or Miss Campbell did. That's not the issue. You've done your job." 2 EFTA00805459 (App. D-2, 59:24).2 The heightened and false sense of urgency exhibited by Paul

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3CXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, a

4) 17 Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Mancusi, 24 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 19 492 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 1 204 So.3d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea 20, 21, 22 170 So.3d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Grossman

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CAS

trial 6 EFTA00793722 court's attention: "So I again want to make clear that I'm finding absolutely no fault with Mr. Link, Miss Rockenbach, Miss Campbell or anyone else from the Link and Rockenbach firm in terms of what they did. . ." (App. D-2, 61:15-18.) Indisputably, it was Epstein who — even befo

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and

ppellant 19 EFTA00793711 already will have been forced to trial in violation of the rule. [e.a.] Gawker Media, LLC, 170 So. 3d at 131. See also Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Gawker, and stating: "In that context, the appellate remedy was deemed i

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Mandamus is "a proper vehicle to enforce the time restrictions for the setting of a trial under rule 1.440." Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Genuine Parts Co. v. Parsons, 917 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) an

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY

ing so because the appellant already will have been forced to trial in violation of the rule. [e.a.] Gawker Media, LLC, 170 So. 3d at 131. See also Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 476, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (citing Gawker, and stating: "In that context, the appellate remedy was deemed i

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY