…iled certain now-stricken allegations in the action styled Jane Doe, et al. v. United States of America, No. 08- 80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the “Federal Action”). After Dershowitz defended himself to the media, Edwards and Cassell sued Dershowitz for defamation. The falsity of Roberts’s...
Results for “S.D. Fla”
Search across the indexed text of every released document.
Names that match “S.D. Fla”
123 documents found
… Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice") (Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; L.M. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416; E.W. De...
… search warrant for Epstein's house. See In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 and OLY-64, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007). At the time she filed Detective Recarey's affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material misrepresentations, including gross misst...
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 30 of 34 Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq. Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz February 25, 2015 Page 2 Thus, this Court has deemed such “ostensible” objections waived or [has] declined to consider them a...
…Rep. 44, 46 (2006). 39 150 Cong. Rec. 7298 (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 40 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, two of the authors of this Article (Cassell and Edwards) are co-counsel for the victims in this case. The s...
…ighteen months in state jail. 44 No federal charges were ever filed and 40 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, two of the authors of this Article (Cassell and Edwards) are co-counsel for the victims in this case. The s...
ARGUMENT Il. | EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN’S CLAIM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS AND THE _ UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH THAT EDWARDS’S CONDUCT COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN | A. The Summary Judgment Stan...
…t at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty…” Krauser v. Evolution Holdings, Inc., 975 F.Supp. 2d 1247, 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2013); quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 24 n. 5 (1998) (Stevens, J., dissenting). 4 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02...
V. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PRIVILEGE Absolute immunity must be afforded any act occurring during course of judicial proceeding, regardless of whether act involves defamatory statement or other tortious behavior, suéh as...
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 31 of 34 Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq. Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz February 25, 2015 Page 3 Asserting Privilege for Non-Existent Documents It is inappropriate to assert a claim of privilege o...
…ven times higher than those in other advanced democracies. See Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540, 572-602 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (documenting and holding unconstitutional widespread stopand-frisk practices by New York City police that disproportionately targeted non-white m...
admissible enidence: Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead to ira “abuse of process” claim. Moreover, the rules of discovery themselves provide that a deposition need only be “reasonably calculated to /ead to the discovery of admissible eviden...
…s v. Broadus, 664 F. Supp. 592, 596-98 (D.D.C. Cir. 1987); United States v. Pers. Fin. Co. of N.Y., 13 F.R.D. 306, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1952). 139 See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 424, 431 (1996). DAVID SCHOEN 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *884 Page 17 of 78 ambiguous rules, but th...
…. 1S, Rep. No. 95-114, at 11. 1 Td. at 10. 2 Td. at 11. 13 United States v. Kozeny, 582 FE. Supp. 2d 535, 540 n.31 (S.D.NY. 2008). "4 Kozeny, 582 FE, Supp. 2d at 540 (citing S. Rep. No. 95-114, at 10-11). 175 J ‘6 These payments, however, must be accurately reflected in the...
IV. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM EPSTEIN’S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN’S CLAIM, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against him for a second and entirely independent reason: Epstein’s repeated...