Epstein Secrets

T COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME I DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, October 3r

4 25 of the primary element of the malicious prosecution claim, what may have been in the mindset of Mr. Epstein when he filed the claim against Rothstein, Edwards and LM -- initials being used only since she was allegedly a minor at the time that the suit was brought -- is of importance to the Court

his deposition testimony, his response to certain discovery requests, the undisputed facts available at the time he filed suit, the indictment of Scott Rothstein, every report in which it's discussed what Mr. Edwards and RRA were doing in these Epstein cases, as well as the filings in the federal court, and

ough counsel based upon the uncontroverted procedural history provided by Mr. Burlington in front of the Fourth District Court of Appeal that the Fourth decided, through Judge Warner's opinion, to address the Tipsy Coachman issue, address it they did, and they did not disturb the trial court's find

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CO1RT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your 110nOr, have we decided what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, , going to hoar? boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

mma to 23 chore so I'm understanding. no questionnaire that 24 stipulations. 24 you're proposing would be after the initial issues 25 And the Fourth has reiterated that in a recent 25 regarding knowledge of any of the participants in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793861

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CWRT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your Honor, have we wowed what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs. , 10 going to hoa

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

mma to 23 chore so I'm understanding. no questionnaire that 24 stipulations. 24 you're proposing would be after the initial issues 25 And the Fourth has reiterated that in a recent 25 regarding knowledge of any of the participants in Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00793814

Trial Exhibits 7.50 0.00 03/03/18 SJL Work on Response to Motion to B. Edwards' Compel re Request for Admissions; strategize re default against S. Rothstein and options to proceed with trial or seek to strike trial setting; work on preparations for special set hearings; work on trial preparations 7.30

ls with P. Casse' ' 3carola, clerk of court and A. Bormai. neral counsel for 15th Judicial Circuit; review c line 15th circuit docket; review of Fourth Distric' t of Appeal docket; revise Petition for Writ of orari regarding grant of B. Edwards' Motion eparate Trials (severance) 03/10/18 RJG Dr

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, / DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN

laint he carries forth the essence of all claims asserted in his original Complaint. In that pleading Epstein essentially alleges that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to “pump” the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. The purported “proof” of the allega

hird and Fourth Districts have applied the litigation privilege to abuse of process claims. However, Wolfe itself, and the decisions of the Third and Fourth Districts cited in Wolfe, involved the litigation privilege as applied to claims of abuse of process by attorneys. None of the cases involved the ext

Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit “SS.” 87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used t