Epstein Secrets

vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN The undersigned, Jeffrey E. Epstein, having first been duly sworn, hereby deposes and says: 1. I am over eighteen (18) years old and have personal knowledge of the facts stated here

or leave to file the supplemental argument contained herein on the following grounds: 1. The trial judge entered summary final judgment in favor of Epstein on the ground that the litigation privilege bars the malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Brad

unrelated to the underlying litigation against me, and (b) asserting my causes of action against Edwards and Rothstein in the Action. FURTHER AFFI JEFFREY EPS STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) _ - Sworn and subscribed to before me, the undersigned authority, by Jeffrey Epstein, this 25t

e of these potentially explosive facts, putative defendant Epstein had allegedly offered $200,000,000.00 for settle

. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUP

eedings, the litigation privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe p

iffs. I ORDER GRANTING COUNTER-DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGM I NT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S, Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the Fourth Amended Counterclaim filed herein by Counter- Plaintiff and the court having reviewed the file and

d applicable precedent, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Mr. EPSTEIN filed suit against Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. EDWARDS thereafter filed a Counterclaim against Mr. EPSTEIN. Mr. EPSTEIN later dismissed his Complaint withou

IVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

mises, it is hereupon ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Mr. EPSTEIN filed suit against Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. EDWARDS th

7298 CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB of action for both abuse of process and malicious prosecution. 3. The court has reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks. Moves & Mitchell. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Bchevarria, McCalla. Ravmer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 Sold 380 (Fla. 2007) and Wolfe

-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Strike Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PR

of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that the filing of the original complaint

) 27:22,24 30:21 imploded (1) 27:5 influence (1) 33:1 information (2) 8:1 13:24 3:24 5:11,13 7:21 17:20 29:21 31:5 33:12 38:9 39:20 40:9 Jeffrey (2) 1:4 6:11 jgoldberger@... 2:11 job (2) juncture (1) 5:24 jurisdiction (1) 28:17 jury (3) 19:5 inherent (1) 44:2 48:5 58:I9 61:13 17:

hat I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a signif

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. C

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 I ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEFFR

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APP

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4DI3-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex

r-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersign

TIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to §768.79 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, h

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOT

rse of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, so long as the actions have some relation to the underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, q

ly, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Judge: CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES PURSUANT TO §57.105 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his

R-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES PURSUANT TO §57.105 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to §57.105 of the Florida Statutes, hereby moves this Court for an award of attorneys' fees

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, vs. SCO

ity for actions taken in relation to those proceedings, including for an action for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The Florida Supreme Court explained the policy reasons for the litigation privilege an

L CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA0408003OOOCMB CIVIL DI

APPENDIX 1. Order Granting Fees and Costs of February 3, 2015 2. Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs with attached pleadings dated June 2, 2014. EFTA00617978 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN A

ADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendant's, Jeffrey Epstein's, Motion for Fees and Costs filed on June 2, 2014. A hearing was held on December 8, 2014, at which 't counsel presented argument on the Motion. On

. This Court agrees and grants summary judgment in favor of Epstein. EXHIAIT "B" EFTA00617998 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wol

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEF

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

t of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT O

ion, 141 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 2 LatAm Invests., LLC v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 88 So. 3d 240 (FIa. 3d DCA 2011) 3 Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994) passim McCullough v. Kubiak, 4D13-4048 (Feb. 18, 2015) 9, 10 Microbilt Corporation v. C

S. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to De

ing heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

H COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

s a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Rayner, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as

adings and discovery responses, and as conceded by Edwards's counsel at oral argument, the events giving rise to Edwards's purported claims against Epstein occurred solely in the course of, and were related to, the litigation, just as occurred in the Wolfe case, mandating Summary Judgment. Wolfe v. For

t or other tortious behavior such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). As a result, if a party seeks to bring a cause of action involving acts that neither