Epstein Secrets

January 10, 2018, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1). LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 727-3600; (561) 727-3601 [fax] By: /s/ Scott J. Link Scott J. Link (FBN 602991) Kara Berard Rock

r Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 12 EFTA00805169 SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 [email protected] Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Aven

Tort Claimants and possibly others. Epstein denies this motivation EFTA00805158 and maintains his probable cause was grounded in media reports of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and the realization of the possible connection for Edwards' litigation behavior unrelated to the claims of his three clients. Court's Rulin

nished via email this day of March, 2018: Jack Scarola Karen E. Terry David P. Vitale, Jr. Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, M. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Philip M. Burlington Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rock

aim against both Rothstein and Edwards) in connection with the use of Epstein case materials, which were improperly utilized to lure investors into the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is clearly and irrefutably related to Edwards' counterclaim against Epstein for filing that original claim. Yet, to mislead this Court into

served by mail vA this Cl day of February, 2011 on: Jack Scarola Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Marc S. Nurik, Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik Attorneys for Scott Rothstein One E. Broward Blvd., Ste 700 Fort Lauderda

in a case like this where incentives offered to Edwards and accepted by Edwards are plainly relevant to a determination of whether he was privy to the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and why he decided even to join RRA. It is significantly relevant to his counterclaim since he is claiming loss of profits and injury to his