Epstein Secrets

1hENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND

ONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION 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 Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correct

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in 3 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00613839 favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings,

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE

URLINGTON Florida Bar No. 285862 By:/s/ Nichole J. Segal NICHOLE J. SEGAL Florida Bar No. 41232 /kbt 6 EFTA00613506 SERVICE LIST Epstein v. Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beac

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00613594 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OP

OSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION 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 Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

ment in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). As such, this Court was correct in granting Summary Judgment in favor of Epstein. Edwards, despite his interminable filings, has not identified one Florida case decided either after the Wolfe decision or the

resolved in favor of the Defendant. This Steinberg case appears to be analogous to the Olson case upon which Edwards relied in his argument against Summary Judgment; an argument which was rejected by this Court. Transcript of Motion for Slummy Judgment hearing, p. 58. The Olson case, just as this Court correctl

FTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 502009CA040800 AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, etc., et al., Defendant(s). ORDER ON DEFENDANT EDWARDS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendant, BRADLEY

at this time. DONE AND ORDERED this -"day /9(raTnu 1 14 Palm Beach County, Florida. DAVID F. CROW CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE EFTA00602115 Epstein v. Rothstein, et al. Case No. 502009CA040800 AG Order Page 3 Copy furnished: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409 J

d raises even the slightest doubt that EFTA00602114 Epstein u. Rothstein, et al. Case No. 502009CA040800 AG Order Page 2 an issue might exist, Summary Judgment is precluded. Fatherly v. California Federal Bank, FSBO, 703 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997). It hardly needs to be repeated that Summary Judgment c

ied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and ot

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00589625 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

ied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and ot

ecution, and that Wolfe is in conflict with pre-existing law on this issue. See 5 EFTA00714928 Brief, p. 6. Appellant does, however, concede that Summary Judgment was proper as to his Abuse of Process claim, see Brief, p. 10, n.2, and that there are no disputed issues of fact presented. Brief, p. 10. Appelle