Epstein Secrets

r reconsideration of this Court's non-final oral ruling denying summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this motion, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law on an essential element: the absence of probable cause for Epstein's underlying lawsuit. The C

l., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPP

tence of probable 2 EFTA00799340 United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-6033 I-CR-COHN; Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwards's Fourth Amended Counterclaim; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Fu

se is encapsulated by the following paragraph from Edward's Opposition: Epstein knew that he had in fact molested each of the minors represented by Brad Edwards. He also knew that each litigation decision by Brad Edwards was grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery

which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the Epstein cases were allegedly misused. 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

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

roward Blvd., Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL

is case arises from Plainfiffitounter-Defendant Jeffery Epstein's lawsuit against Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein. Edwards then countersued Epstein for malicious prosecution. Epstein voluntarily dismissed his initial suit On Augustin 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Jud

ger & 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esquire 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale FL 301 Bradley J. Edwards Esquire Staftefil Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fred ' de I Financial Plaza S

, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Btoward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradle J. Edwards Es . brad Fan a e eissing 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fred Haddad, Es . tnancta aza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderda

N, against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and are not part of the legal claims brought by Defendant/Counte•-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. However, this Proposal is intended to resolve all such claims if available.

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

IAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE HAFELE v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BR

DS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAFtDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"),

es of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Motion for Summary Judgment on the sole remaining count of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Malicious Prosecution. In order to prevail on this count, Edwards must prove that there was an absence of probable c

he New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Florida Sun- Sentinal and other media outlets reported that Scott Rothstein, the partner of plaintiff Brad Edwards, had fled to Morocco to evade criminal prosecution for using their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), to perpetrate a massive Ponzi sch

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

Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby serves this Proposal for Settlement upon Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442: 1. This Proposal is being made pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. and Fla. R

s Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees against Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). In support of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION; On August 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amoun

ndant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, against Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and the claims brought by Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, Individually, sinst Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The part

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

ward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 42

tein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") legally and factually deficient Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Epstein states: INTRODUCTION On or about January 9, 2013, Edwar

ird, Edwards asserts that a protective order is warranted because the production requested "is unnecessarily intrusive into the financial privacy of BRADLEY EDWARDS'." See Exhibit B. However, because Edwards has put his financial status at issue by his assertion of damages, his Motion must be denied. When a party

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

ALM 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 SETTLEMENT TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

ant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). The party to whom this Proposal is being made is Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually ("Edwards"). In this Proposal, Epstein and Edwards will be referred to collectively as the "Parties." b. Claims this Proposal is Attempting to Resolve: Acce

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

were raised or could have been raised relating to or arising out of that certain action styled Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, individually and Bradley J. Edwards, individually, 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 2009-CA- 040800XXXXMG-AG. It is further understood and agreed that this G

dant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). The party to whom this Proposal is being made is Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually ("Edwards"). In this Proposal, Epstein and Edwards will be referred to collectively as the "Parties." b. Claims this Proposal is Attempting to Resolve: Acce

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

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,

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

OR 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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU DGMENT THIS CAU

nds 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 Epstein; abuse of process and malic

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

ALM 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 SETTLEMENT TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

ant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). The party to whom this Proposal is being made is Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually ("Edwards"). In this Proposal, Epstein and Edwards will be referred to collectively as the "Parties." b. Claims this Proposal is Attempting to Resolve: Acce

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