This document is a legal response filed on May 18, 2017, in the Supreme Court of Florida by Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Paul Morris. In response to a court order dated May 3, 2017, Epstein's counsel concedes that they cannot show cause why the precedent set in 'Debrincat v. Fischer' should not control the case, effectively advising the court that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction over Epstein's petition.
A corrected order from the Supreme Court of Florida dated May 3, 2017, in the case of Jeffrey Epstein vs. Bradley J. Edwards. The court orders the Petitioner (Epstein) to show cause by May 18, 2017, why the court should not decline jurisdiction based on the precedent of Debrincat v. Fischer. The document lists service to several attorneys including Marc S. Nurik and Jack Alan Goldberger.
This is a legal motion filed on December 14, 2015, in the Supreme Court of Florida (Case No. SC15-2286) by Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Paul Morris. Epstein requests an extension of time until January 19, 2016, to file his initial brief on jurisdiction. The document notes that the Respondent's counsel, Philip M. Burlington, has no objection to the request, and includes a service list of attorneys involved in the related proceedings.
This document is a legal filing dated December 10, 2015, in which Jeffrey Epstein's attorney, Paul Morris, files a 'Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction' with the Supreme Court of Florida. Epstein is appealing a decision made on November 12, 2015, by the District Court of Appeal (Fourth District) in the case of 'Bradley J. Edwards v. Jeffrey Epstein'. The attached opinion reveals that the lower court reversed a summary judgment that had favored Epstein, ruling that 'litigation privilege' does not bar Edwards' claim of malicious prosecution against Epstein.
A 2017 Supreme Court of Florida order denying Jeffrey Epstein's petition for discretionary review in his case against Bradley J. Edwards. The court declined jurisdiction following a review of the response to a show cause order. The document lists the concurring justices and the individuals served with the order, including various attorneys and clerks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity