Epstein Secrets

re same 03/17/18 SJL C( ) I Edwards' Response to ,r1 mus and Motion to 03/18/18 TLC W )esponse to our Pe s, Request for Oral '. Cassell's Joinder; fo work on it ital Appendix; work or 03/18/18 RJG R ' second round of edits tc ng 03/18/18 SJL W -sell's Joinder; work or 'o 'se to o

P • • to Petitoner's Motion 0.30 0.00 fo ld Costs 03/19/18 TLC C. • Edwards' Response 9.80 2,205.00 to mus, Request for O. P. Cassell's Joinder at rk on Motion for tinue working on cl. .very . oduction issues; work on 03/19/18 SJL W Zesponse to our 8.20 6,150.00 Pr Request for O

er issues surrounding the 27,000 page disc of e-mails located in Fowler White's files; follow up with client on outcome of hearing; follow up with Fowler White re issues surrounding disc; work on Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Review of Order Denying Stay 03/08/18 K

at Improperly and Without Foundation Claims Misconduct by Counsel The now sealed exhibits have never been deemed "apparently stolen" by my court. (Joinder, p. 1.) And neither Epstein nor his counsel has taken the "position that he need not immediately comply because of this Court's recent stay." (Joind

ion of Fowler White and Mr. Ackerman (of which Mr. Cassell has not even the slightest of proof), then the most one could say is that for eight years Fowler White and Mr. Ackerman held a disc but never used any of the information contained on it. Frankly, no competent lawyer could review the materials t

er- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") April 3, 2018, Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order', and the Intervenors' April 7, 2018, Joinder and states: INTRODUCTION In order to justify his Motion for Sanctions, Edwards concocts a patently absurd construction of this Court's verbal ruli

l ruling on March 8, 2018, incorrectly asserting that the Court prohibited Epstein from referring, in any way, to the 27,000+ pages contained on the Fowler White CD. His claim is that Epstein violated this Court's ruling the four times Epstein "referenced" the documents at issue in one filing with this

er- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") April 3, 2018, Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Court Order', and the Intervenors' April 7, 2018, Joinder and states: INTRODUCTION In order to justify his Motion for Sanctions, Edwards concocts a patently absurd construction of this Court's verbal ruli

this Court's verbal ruling on March 8, 2018, asserting that Epstein was prohibited from referring, in any way, to the 27,000+ pages contained on the Fowler White CD. His claim is that Epstein violated this Court's ruling the four times Epstein "referenced" the documents at issue in one filing with this

late to opposing counsel for review in advance of hearing; work on Response to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause in bankruptcwork on Response to Joinder filed by Intervenors ., E.W. and Jane Doe 04/03/18 SJL Work on insurance demand to Fowler White; work on Motion for In Camera Review; review pro

Work on Response in Opposition to B. Edwards' 9.50 7,125.00 Motion to be Permitted to Take His Limited Deposition; review Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and J. Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt and Scheduling Evidentiary Show Cause Hearing; telephone conferences with D. Indyke and C. Pu