Epstein Secrets

, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ) ) ) Petitioner/Counter-Defendant, ) ) vs. No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG ) SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, ) and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ) individually, ) ) Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. ) ) West Palm Beach, Florida November 2nd, 2018 10:25 a.m. - 1:06 p.m. Plaintiff/Counte

ss the proposed additional exhibits. The witness that was the potential cause of concern has been withdrawn for the purposes of the action by Mr. Edwards against Mr. Epstein, so that is moot at this juncture. And we'll launch into the discussion relative to the proposed exhibits. I don't know if --

o you want to also be involved and set it up some other time? Bradley Edwards." MR. SCAROLA: Right. And the suggestion is made that this impeaches Brad Edwards' testimony that he only met with Mr. Rothstein and spoke about the Epstein cases on two occasions. Well, first of all, it doesn't do that. Palm B

al, whether it's admissible or not, whether it's really relevant or not, based upon the allegations included within the original complaint against Brad Edwards and the malicious prosecution claim that is currently being prosecuted in front of this Court. There is no way to excuse this nondisclosure, eith

: SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 By JOHN "JACK" SCAROLA, ESQUIRE and DAVID P. VITALE, JR., ESQUIRE Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. EFTA00804572 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2

good faith basis for my filing these claims against Mr. Edwards because there was this case filed down in Broward County that never even mentions Bradley Edwards' name. And he can't come and stand before Your Honor and say, as he just did through Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00788196

EFTA00788113 3 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We have various motions on the Edwards counterclaim that was brought against Mr. Epstein relative to the remaining count of malicious prosecution. I have read as much as the materials

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things until the Ponzi scheme gets uncovered and he seizes upon the Ponzi scheme as a means by which to try to extort Bradley Edwards into abandoning the legitimate interest of his clients or compromising those interests for less than those interests were worth. THE COURT: Let's

dwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. For Bradley Edwards: BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUI

ry important distinction when Your Honor comes to ruling upon whether these lines of inquiry are relevant at all. Does it make any difference what Bradley Edwards' motive was, what his subjective thought processes were in filing a motion in the context of a pending case to require the posting of a bond if re

otion to overrule objections and compel Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' answer to questions. Judge, this motion is directed at Mr. Edwards' deposition testimony and the two depositions he provided in this case, the first of which was March 23rd, 2010, the second of which was May 15th,

dwards: SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE By DAVID P. VITALE, JR. For Bradley Edwards: BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH PA 444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By PHILIP MEAD BURLINGTON, ESQUI