Epstein Secrets

E. The Present Motion to Compel I0 ARGUMENT 11 I. EDWARDS MAY NOT RELY ON THE VACATED DISTRICT COURT ORDER FROM THE JANE DOE ACTION 12 II. EDWARDS FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY OF A NON-PARTY UNDER CPLR 3101(a) 14 A. The Epstein Interview Does Not Have Heightened Relevance to

a deposition in one of the now-settled suits by implying that "he did not recognize" reporter Rush. Moving Br. at 17; see also Moving Affidavit of Bradley James Edwards, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010 ("Edwards Aft"), ¶ 22. Besides being farfetched and factually unsupported, Edwards' apparent desire to attack Epstein's cr

pstein sex abuse litigation, as even a quick Google search reveals. See. e.g., Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits. M. POST, Oct. 12, 2009 ("Florida lawyer Brad Edwards. who represents three of the 'Jane Does' who are suing Epstein, told Page Six that Phislaine] Maxwell would be questioned over her knowledge of how

lawyers and others close to the case — including attorney Edwards — who could provide tips and information to assi

Church of Scientology of Calif, Inc., 444 So.2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 18 Damiano v. Sony Music Entm 'I, Inc., 168 M. 485 (M. 1996) 27 Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So.2d 1051 (FIa. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) 18 DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290 (FIa. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) 21 E.I. Du

eme Action and does not Indeed, Epstein's settlement of the three suits legally km him from ever making such a claim for malicious prosecution. See Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So.2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) ("a bona fide termination favorable to plaintiff does not encompass a term

RITTON: Good morning. Plaintiff. 6 MR. SCAROLA: Good morning, Judge. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, 7 THE WITNESS: Were here on Epstein versus BRADLEY J. EDWAFtDS, individually, and L.M. individually, Defendants. / 8 9 10 Rothstein, et al. So, I've read the materials you guys submitted on both sides and

ins, RPR, FPR 22 judgment than it is a claim for a judgment on Notary Public, State of Florida 23 the pleadings. Prose Court Reporting 24 Mr. Edwards argues through his counsel Job No . 1783 25 that, in essence, Mr. Epstein's a bad person. Page 2 Page 4 APPEARANCES: 1. So no matter what hap

here is no such allegation of a post-issuance 20 case first. 20 act other than service of what was issued under 21 They sued for malicious, Mr. Della-Donna 21 the circumstances. 22 sued for malicious prosecution, abuse of 22 And it goes on and describes abuse of 23 process, and liable. And at page

ired. It's part of the -- that is, it 12 fact and dispute. Furthermore Russell 13 doesn't go to the issue of the motion for 13 established that Della-Donna failed to allege 14 summary judgment. 14 and there was no evidence of any act by Russell 15 Secondly, there is no 772.11 claim in the 15 whic

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 COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA04080

RIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XxxxmBAG PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.110 of the Flor

02009CA040800XXXXMl3AG Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA Marc Munk, Esq. Bradlcy J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. LS Law Finn Four Seasons Tower 10 EFTA00299008

verted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt, Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 24 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epstein states that

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

n"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby moves to dismiss the Amended Counterclaim of the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS ("Edwards"), and in support thereof states as follows : I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' Amended Counterclaim should be dismissed because it fails to state a

. Payless Flea Mkt, 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 411' DCA. 2010); Valdes v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 867 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). With regard to the first element of the tort of abuse of process, it is axiomatic t

use Edwards' abuse of process claim is based on the filing of allegedly insufficient claims, it fails to state a valid claim for relief. See, e.g., Della-Donna, 512 So. 2d at 1055; McMurray, 425 So. 2d 1208 (counterclaim for abuse of process was properly dismissed with prejudice when based on filing of comp

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAR

-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards' Counterclaim, and states as follows : I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment should be entered in favor of Epstein on Edwards' single-count Counterclaim for abuse of process because it is legally insufficient. Edwards' Counterclaim does not state an actionable claim for ab

. Payless Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2010); Valdes v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 924 So. 2d 862, 867 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). With regard to the first element of the tort of abuse of process, it is axiomatic t

et al. abuse of process.' [Citation omitted] The plaintiff must prove improper use of process after it issues." S&I Invs., 36 So. 3d at 917(quoting Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055-56 (Fla. 411' DCA 1987)). See also Valdes, 924 So. 2d at 867 ("Valdes' failure to allege any improper wi

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 COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA04080

, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. I East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fon Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. LS Law Fi

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

erted process; and 3) damages resulting therefrom. S & I Invs. v. Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added); Della-Donna v. Nova Univ., Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). EFTA00292563 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For his Second Affirmative Defense, Epst

A JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1201 Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' M

FREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby offers the following response in opposition to Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff EDWARDS' ("Edwards") Motion for Leave to Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages ("motion")" and states: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' latest kitchen-sink moti

se of process requires proof that the judicial system was misused for an ulterior purpose after an action was filed and process served. See,. e.g., Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); McMurray v. U-Haul Co, Inc., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Acco