Epstein Secrets

AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. cor.50.2929aufactigIVP111, CASE NO. • A Aq SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and .M., individually, Defendants. COMPL CO Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned

ant, ROTHSTEIN and Stuall osenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, EDWA

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

at ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the mass selling an alleged interest or investment in the Ci • Epstein. 27. Further evidencing that EDWARDA possibly other attorneys of RRA) knew or should have known and participated in the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme, a front-page Palm Beac

aint in April 2009, after EDWARDS joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in <SL7 complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of .'s Second Amended Complaint, L.M. alleges among other things, that: "Jeffrey Epstein coerced, induced, or enticed . . .the then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexu

nd Amended Counterclaim, attached as Exhibit A, which includes (a) two additional counts for defamation against Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell") (together, "Plaintiffs"); (b) additional, recently discovered facts in support of Dershowitz's defamatio

DERSHOWITZ'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM AND FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS EDWARDS AND CASSELL Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.170(a), 1.170(e

ell made up the story. Whether ]'s statements are true or not — and we believe them to be trite — it really doesn't make a difference as to whether Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell reasonably believed them to be true" (emphasis added). This statement constitutes another extra-judicial statement on behalf of Edw

Amended Counterclaim, which expands on the factual allegations of Edwards's and Cassell's tortious conduct in several ways: • First, the proposed Second Amended Complaint asserts an additional count for defamation based on the attorneys' actions in asserting the unsubstantiated and irresponsible allegation that Dersh

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

int in April 20O9, after EDWARDS joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in ■.'s complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of ■.'s Second Amended Complaint, ■. alleges among other things, that: "Jeffrey Epstein coerced, induced, or enticed . .the then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees

ey Edwards whether he would withdraw them in exchange for an affidavit from Mr. Rush attesting to the fact that he had interviewed Mr. Epstein. Mr. Edwards said he would not. 10. On Friday, April 30, 2010, I received service of a subpoena from Doe's counsel requiring movant journalist George Rush to a

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

int in April 20O9, after EDWARDS joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in ■.'s complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of ■.'s Second Amended Complaint, alleges among other things, that: "Jeffrey Epstein coerced, induced, or enticed . .the then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual mi

IT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOOvIBAG DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, RESPONSE IN dPPOSITION TO JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RBLATING TO HIS DEPOSITION AND IN SUPPORT OF EDWARDS' MOTINO TO COMPEL

AINTIFF, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, RESPONSE IN dPPOSITION TO JEFFERY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER RBLATING TO HIS DEPOSITION AND IN SUPPORT OF EDWARDS' MOTINO TO COMPEL AND IMPOSE SANCTIONS j Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards (hereinafter EDWARDS), by and throligh his undersigned

ke the legal system by filing a Complaint against attorney EDWARDS. Accordingly, just like any other civil plaintif

and prosecute against El) ARDS and the pending, closely related counterclaims. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, EPSTEIN has filed a Second Amended Complaint against ED ARDS. The complaint challenges EDWARDS' professionalism as an attorney rep enting girls who had been sexually abused. In particular,

EY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: Defendants. COMPLAINT SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other l

nt, ROTHSTEIN and Stuart Rosenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and Is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, EDWA

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

int In April 2009, after EDWARDS Joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in ■.'s complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of ■.'s Second Amended Complaint, II. alleges among other things, that: "Jeffrey Epstein coerced, induced, or enticed . . .the then minor Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexu

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, Defendants. SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ADJUST THE ORDER OF PROOF

f Process count contained in the Second Amended Pleading, to which no default has been entered and which has not been set for trial. EFTA00805492 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Supplement to Motion for Separate Trials or, in the Alternative, to Adjust the Order of Proof Supplem

e four abandoned counts in an inoperative pleading that was no longer part of the record was now a nullity. 6. On August 21, 2011, Epstein filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Rothstein. In his Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes the Amended Complaint, Epstein abandoned his Abuse of Process claim

ellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit

Confronted with Rule 1.440, a compulsory rule of Florida Civil Procedure, and unequivocal legal precedent interpreting the same clearly against him, Edwards levels false and misleading accusations against Epstein and injects impertinent allegations into his argument in an obvious attempt to divert the C

e like this one, "a case where the case had never been at issue." Serban, 148 So. 3d at 1291(quoting Labor Ready). Furthermore, Epstein's operative Second Amended Complaint, which had neither been answered nor defaulted, contained a "brand-new" count alleged in response to the trial court's order dismissing the prior a

COPY RECEIVED FOR FILING DEC 13 2011 SHARON CLERK CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION wiR.SORCKLER PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' REQUEST TO PRODUCE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.350 of t

and all other contracts for legal services in the defense of criminal charges or other civil claims against EFTA00286378 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG Mr. Epstein not related to the claims in the Second Amended Complaint as being irrelevant, overbroad, and pr

lving your misconduct with minor females. Answer: If there is a contract for legal services relating to the damages claimed by Mr. Epstein in his Second Amended Complaint, it will be produced. Plaintiff objects to producing any and all other contracts for legal services in the defense of criminal charges or other civi

y Submitted, EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC By: /s/ Bradley Edwards 129 EFTA00162249 Case 1:22-cv-10019-JSR Document 36 Filed 01/13/23 Page 130 of 130 Bradley J. Edwards 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Email: [email protected] EDWARDS POTTINGER Brittany N.

Dated: January 13, 2023 Respectfully Submitted, EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC By: /s/ Bradley Edwards 129 EFT

29. Many of these women, particularly after Epstein's conviction in 2008, were trafficked from Eastern Europe. As the Government explained in its Second Amended Complaint, these women were recruited and, in several instances, required to marry other Epstein victims in order to maintain their immigration status and th