Epstein Secrets

biting any reference to or use of the exhibits at the trial. (3/18/18 Aft. Tr. 75:24-76:6.) This, 3Edwards claimed it is 49 exhibits, but two of the Bates numbers he referenced were pages contained within another exhibit, making the total 47 exhibits which are in dispute. 3 EFTA00808660 of course,

ssemination by Epstein or his attorneys has occurred. And Epstein's general references to the e-mails in connection with requests to this Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeals for judicial relief certainly comply with the Court's rulings and provide no basis for sanctions. The Bankruptcy Court's November 2010 Agreed Order

tein, who had agreed to pay directly all such fees and costs. It was then determined that the number of documents that would need to be printed and Bates stamped exceeded 27,000, which would have resulted in significant costs to the Farmer Jaffe law firm. Consequently, Farmer Jaffe requested the Cour

opinion that effectively temporarily abolished the tort of malicious prosecution in the State of Florida. That dismissal was appealed by Edwards and the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Edwards' favor, which was then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the appellate courts. On

e attached as Exhibit J to the Edwards Declaration accompanying this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates number stamp).' Because Epstein has moved to keep these documents from the public, they are at this time filed under seal with the Court. Threugh-

, sought to be closed." Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath ordered the agreement to be unsealed in June, but Epstein's attorneys appealed the ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed Colbath's ruling. Colbath had ruled that the federal agreement — sealed in state court — was improperly sealed. 'I felt it was my f