Epstein Secrets

ir identity will be indicated by their initials. 6) This Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders. 7) The disclosure of the sealed documents shall be stayed at least until June 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the Court wil

attempting to march up 15 the wrong hill here, your Honor. 16 This matter needs to -- has to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matter. Now, at our last 20 abbreviated hearing two weeks ago, I told 21 you for the first time that

to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matte

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

ir identity will be indicated by their initials. 6) This Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders. 7) The disdosure of the sealed documents shall be stayed at least until June 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the Court will

attempting to march up 15 the wrong hill here, your Honor. 16 This matter needs to -- has to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matter. Now, at our last 20 abbreviated hearing two weeks ago, I told 21 you for the first time that

to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matte

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

00798365 2 3 4 f 7 4 a 10 11 12 13 13 17 IS 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 transfer of a➢aota by Mr. Epstein that waa filed with Judge Marra? A No. I never hoard of that. Q Did you review the order entered by Judge Marra where he found that there wa➢ no evidence to support the filing

fer of a➢aota by Mr. Epstein that waa filed with Judge Marra? A No. I never hoard of that. Q Did you revie

So I served on the 12 Fourth District and served with a panel of judges 13 and heard quite a number of cafes and wrote several 14 decisions for the Fourth District. Q The jury may not be familiar with the 14 procedure, but when the appellate court reviews 17 decision➢ that are rendered and jury trial re➢ul

Mr. Epstein to post a multi-million-dollar bond. Judge Marra threw that out, stating that there was no basis

was shown to the investors, and there is testimony to that fact. Then Mr. Edwards filed a motion. It was a motion asking that the court -- Judge Marra -- federal district court -- to enter a bond -- enter an order requiring Mr. Epstein to post a multi-million-dollar bond. Judge Marra threw that o

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

B; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act