Epstein Secrets

ives the privilege. United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982). The general rule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he volu

es here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were sha

at homeowners' voluntary disclosure of information to their next-door-neighbor's relatives would waive a claim of privilege in confidential matter); Walker v. River City Logistics, Inc., 14 So. 3d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that voluntary disclosure of allegedly privileged documents waived

ruling on the issue of probable cause, and an opportunity for the parties to be heard at oral argument on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 25 EFTA00799363 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . • Atterbury,

on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 25 EFTA0079

would be in the best interests of the parties and the public, inasmuch as it would avoid needless expense and conserve precious judicial resources. Walker v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 121 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). As explained below, the undisputed and incontrovertible facts establish tha

The Last Word with O'Donnell — MSNBC (Jan. 8, 2015). Following these statements, on January 6, 2015, attorneys Edwards and Cassell. represented by Jack Scarola, Esq.. filed a defamation action in Broward County Circuit Court. See Exhibit II at ¶ 17 (alleging Dershowitz has "initiated a massive public media

ged information you would seek from me, I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate." See Exhibit 12 (emphasis added). On August 23, 2011, Scarola sent a letter to Dershowitz, explaining that there was no intent to inquire about attorney-client information, but adding: "[w]e do. however, have r

" ld. at 1260. That is essentially what Prof. Dershowitz seeks here. Furthermore, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is also appropriate. See Walker. Jim Dandy Co., 747 F.2d 1360, 1365 (11th Cir. 1984). IV. These facts are distinguishable from those presented by the earlier intervenor motion f

to be heard at oral argument regarding any assertions by Edwards attempting to refute the existence of probable cause. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P

probable cause. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Be

would be in the best interests of the parties and the public, inasmuch as it would avoid needless expense and conserve precious judicial resources. Walker v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 121 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). As explained below, the undisputed and incontrovertible material facts in t

EPSTEIN - 5TH AMENDMENT DERSHOWITZ DEPOSTIIONS: 1. Dersh Depo Vol 2 — question by Scarola — pg 218 — "So you recognized as of 1-5-15 that the reason why the statements were filed in the CVRA case was because the CVRA case had, as an obje

o seek a wide range of `legal' and equitable remedies apart from, or in addition to, invalidation of the illegal agreement." 9 "Thus, unlike the Walker case where the agreement was an accident, here the illegal agreement was a deliberate plan. In such circumstances, any equitable claim Epstein ha