Epstein Secrets

CUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION -AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800)CCXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTF-IN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Summary Judgment rendered in th

t certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOT?' ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY'. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800,OOOCMB-AG, pending in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p

XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individua

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S PROPOSAL FOR SE

roposal. e. Amount Proposed to Settle Claim for Punitive Damages, If Any: Edwards has asserted a claim against Epstein for punitive damages in his Fourth Amended Counterclaim. The Total Amount set forth in paragraph 2(d) above includes payment of $20,000 for Edwards' claim for punitive damages. The total amo

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

d factually deficient Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Epstein states: INTRODUCTION On or about January 9, 2013, Edwards filed his Fourth Amended Counterclaim against Epstein, asserting therein that he suffered the following damages: "a) injury to his reputation; b) mental anguish, embarrassm

[PROVIDE CITATION FROM NYT ARTICLE, WSJ ARTICLE, SUN-SENTICAL ARTICLE AND EPSTEIN AFFIDAVIT]; Amended Complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in

and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. See Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. Scott Rothstein, Edwards's partner at RRA, admitted to and was convicted for th

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S PROPOSAL FOR SET

EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individua

roposal. e. Amount Proposed to Settle Claim for Punitive Damages, If Any: Edwards has asserted a claim against Epstein for punitive damages in his Fourth Amended Counterclaim. The Total Amount set forth in paragraph 2(d) above includes payment of $10,000 for Edwards' claim for punitive damages. The total amo

ION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plainti

RCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO.: 2009CA0408003OOOCMB CIVIL DIVISION "AG" Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Counter-Defendan

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 result of being sued by Mr. Epstein in 2009 and not by being partners with Scott Rothstein, we are entitled to pursue that. We're entitled to the discovery to show how much money he made while he was working at RRA, before he was working

e, Judge, if the Court looks to the specific complaint filed by Mr. Epstein against Mr. Edwards, the allegation that we are stuck to defend here, Rothstein and the litigation team knew or should have known that the three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons. Judge, LM

rocess claim has been disposed of. It was successfully won on the summary judgment and is no longer an issue. So the only operative portion of the Fourth Amended Counterclaim is count two, malicious prosecution. In that complaint, Judge, against Mr. Epstein, Mr. Edwards asserts in paragraph 24, "While pro

FTEENTH 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. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

rwise 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 Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

me before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's Fourth Amended Counterclaim. The Court, having considered the Motion and Responses, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the prem

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S PROPOSAL FOR SE

XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individua

roposal. e. Amount Proposed to Settle Claim for Punitive Damages, If Any: Edwards has asserted a claim against Epstein for punitive damages in his Fourth Amended Counterclaim. The Total Amount set forth in paragraph 2(d) above includes payment of $100,000 for Edwards' claim for punitive damages . The total a

L v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19); Depos

aim; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et at v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19). On December 1, 2009, the Federal Government filed a 36 page Information against Rothstein charging that RRA was a r

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p