Epstein Secrets

public attention.' Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a heinous crime: sexually abusing

Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a heinous crime: sexually abusing a minor. J

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

ublic attention.' Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a heinous crime: sexually abusing

Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a heinous crime: sexually abusing a minor. J

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

:44 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, VS. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. / DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN M. DERSHOWI

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the

howitz has repeatedly referred to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015621 --- PAGE BREAK --- Edwards, Bradley vs. Dershowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 2 of 20 these documents, not only in defamatory statements broadc

greed to. represent these girls, along with attorney Jay Howell (an attomey in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed state court actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on beha

0, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached favorable settlement terms for my thre

ntiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the parties a