Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT The appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully moves for

28 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process). Edwards appealed and is challenging the final judgment solely as to the malicious prosecution claim. 2. After the parties' briefs were filed, this Court is

rds, Rothstein was deposed. At the morning session of deposition on December 12, 2011, Rothstein was asked the following about Bradley Edwards: Q: Brad Edwards, would he have reported illegal activity? A: I don't know. Q: Would he have reported trust account defalcations? 22 R. 816, citing letter dated Ju

ts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present

at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and jury." 446 So. 2d at 1167. Here, both the aff

AL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN: Monday, January 27, 2014 TIME: 3:00 p.m. - 4:23 p.m. PLACE: Palm Bea

had no knowledge whatsoever 4 that a separate and independent action had been 5 brought by Mr. Epstein against the Rothstein 6 entities and Mr. Edwards. So to that extent, I 7 just to want let you know, as you probably already 8 did already know, that I handled those cases I 9 believe to their

are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606536 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 privilege. And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up with any other conclusion other than t

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court itself 2

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 ttorneys or e rey pstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

rclaim and Supporting Memorandum 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 th

ims are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 001237 EFTA00613534 28 1 privilege. 2 And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read 3 Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the 4 panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up 5 with any other conclusion oth

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 24 25 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court i

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, EDWARDS, L.M., E.W., Intervenors. ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762 APPENDIX TO RESPONSE TO PETI

derdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTT1NGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, St

n determine whether Plaintiff "had a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the tria

to Amended to Assert Punitive Damages; Exhibit “E” — Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein dated January 25, 2012; Exhibit “F’ — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Exhibit “G” - Deposition of Scott Rothstein dated June 14, 2012; Exhibit “H” — Order of HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013305 --- PAGE BREAK

a state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not

dwards Affidavit”) (Exhibit 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, tomes