File 010566

Images

Text

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. :50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,
Defendants,
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the following specific facts as the undisputed
material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to
facilitate Epstein's required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) ("The adverse party shall
identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party relies."). All
referenced exhibits and attachments have previously been filed with the Court and provided to
Epstein.
Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein
1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Deposition of
Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010, at 110 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") (Deposition Attachment
#1).1
When questioned about this subject at his deposition, Epstein invoked his Fifth Amendment right to
remain silent rather than make an incriminating admission. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to the
adverse inference against Epstein that, had Epstein answered, the answer would have been unfavorable to
him. "[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to
2. Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted more than forty (40) young girls on
numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005 in his mansion in West Palm Beach, Florida. These
sexual assaults included vaginal penetration. Epstein abused many of the girls dozens if not
hundreds of times. Epstein Depo. at 109 ("Q: How many times have you engaged in oral sex
with females under the age of 18?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth Amendment]); Deposition of Jane
Doe, September 24, 2009 and continued March 11, 2010, at 527 (minor girl sexually abused at
least 17 times by Epstein) (hereinafter "Jane Doe Depo") (Deposition Attachment #2); id. 564-67
(vaginal penetration by Epstein with his finger), 568 (vaginal penetration by Epstein with a
massager); Deposition of L.M., September 24, 2009, at 73 (hereinafter "L.M. Depo")
(Deposition Attachment #3) (describing the manner in which Epstein abused her beginning when
LM was 13 years old, touching her vagina with his fingers and vibrator) at 74, line 12-13 (she
was personally molested by Epstein more than 50 times), at 164, line 19-23 and 141, line 12-13
and 605, line 3-6 (describing that in addition to being personally molested by Epstein she was
paid $200 per underage girl she brought Epstein and she brought him more than seventy (70)
underage girls - she told him that she did not want to bring him any more girls and he insisted
that she continue to bring him underage girls); Deposition of E.W., May 6, 2010 (hereinafter
"E.W. Depo") (Deposition Attachment #4) at 115-116, 131 and 255 (describing Epstein's abuse
of her beginning at age 14 when he paid her for touching her vagina, inserting his fingers and
civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter
v. Paltnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App.
2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of
others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege — at least not in a civil
setting." Fraser v. Security and II1V. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. App. 1993).
2
using a vibrator and he also paid her $200 for each other underage female E.W. brought him to
molest. She brought him between 20 and 30 underage females); Deposition of Jane Doe #4, date
(hereinafter "Jane Doe #4 Depo") (Deposition Attachment #5) at 32-34, and 136 (she describes
first being taken to Epstein at 15 years old, "Being fingered by him, having him use a vibrator on
[me], grabbing my nipples, smelling my butt, jerking off in front of me, licking my cut, several
times.").
3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did
conclude2 that Epstein was able to access a large number of underage girls through a pyramid
abuse scheme in which he paid underage victims $200-$300 cash for each other underage victim
that she brought to him. See Palm Beach Police Incident Report at 87 (hereinafter "Incident
Report") (Exhibit "A").3 The Palm Beach Police Incident Report details Epstein's scheme for
molesting underage females. Among other things, the Incident Report outlines some of the
experiences of other Epstein victims. When S.G, a 14 year old minor at the time, was brought to
Epstein's home, she was taken upstairs by a woman she believed to be Epstein's assistant. The
woman started to fix up the room, putting covers on the massage table and bringing lotions out.
The "assistant" then left the room and told S.G. that Epstein would be up in a second. Epstein
walked over to S.G. and told her to take her clothes off in a stern voice. S.G. states in the report
she did not know what to do, as she was the only one there. S.G. took off her shirt, leaving her
bra on. Epstein, then in a towel told her to take off everything. S.G. removed her pants leaving
2 In support of all assertions concerning the actions Edwards took, what Edwards learned in the course of his
representation of his clients, Edwards's good faith beliefs and the foundation for those beliefs, see Edwards
Affidavit and specifically paragraphs 25 and 25 of that Affidavit.
3 For clarity, depositions attached to this memorandum will be identified numerically as attachments #I, #2, #3, etc.,
while exhibits attached to this memorandum will be identified alphabetically as exhibits A, B, C, etc.
3
on her thong panties. Epstein then instructed S.G to give him a massage. As S.G gave Epstein a
massage, Epstein turned around and masturbated. S.G. was so disgusted, she did not say
anything; Epstein told her she "had a really hot body." Id. at 14. In the report, S.G. admitted
seeing Jeffrey Epstein's penis and stated she thought Epstein was on steroids because he was a
"really built guy and his wee wee was very tiny." Id. at 15.
4. The exact number of minor girls who Epstein assaulted is known only to Epstein.
However, Edwards had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe that Epstein's victims
were substantially more than forty (40) in number. In addition to the deposition excerpts from
two of his many victims above about the number of underage girls brought to Epstein and the
Palm Beach incident report, there is overwhelming proof that the number of underage girls
molested by Epstein through his scheme was in the hundreds. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v.
Epstein, (hereinafter Jane Doe 102 complaint) (Exhibit "B"); see also Deposition of Jeffrey
Epstein, April 14, 2010, at 442, 443, and 444 (Epstein invoking the 5th on questions about his
daily abuse and molestation of children) (Deposition Attachment #6).
5. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation
against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney's Office in an attempt
to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See
Correspondence from U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein (hereinafter "U.S. Attorney's
Correspondence") (Composite Exhibit "C) (provided in discovery during the Jane Doe v. Epstein
case).
4
6. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that, more specifically, Epstein's attorneys knew of Epstein's scheme to recruit minors for
sex and also knew that these minors had civil actions that they could bring against him. In fact,
there was much communication between Epstein's attorneys and the United States Prosecutors in
a joint attempt to minimize Epstein's civil exposure. For example, on October 3, 2007, Assistant
U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaila sent an email (attached hereto as Exhibit "D") to Jay Leflcowitz,
counsel for Epstein, with attached proposed letter to special master regarding handling numerous
expected civil claims against Epstein. The letter reads in pertinent part,
"The undersigned, as counsel for the United States of America and
Jeffrey Epstein, jointly write to you to provide information relevant to your
service as a Special Master in the selection of an attorney to represent several
young women who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The
U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred
to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein
regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in
prostitution. Mr. Epstein, through his assistants, would recruit underage
females to travel to his home in Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in
exchange for money. Based upon the investigation, the United States has
identified forty (40) young women who can be characterized as victims
pursuant to 18 USC 2255. Some of those women went to Mr. Epstein's home
only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the
women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude massage while
Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women, the conduct escalated to
full sexual intercourse. As part of the resolution of the case, Epstein has
agreed that he would not contest jurisdiction in the Southern District of Florida
for any victim who chose to sue him for damages pursuant to 18 USC 2255.
Mr. Epstein agreed to provide an attorney for victims who elected to proceed
exclusively pursuant to that section, and agreed to waive any challenge to
liability under that section up to an amount agreed to by the parties. The parties
have agreed to submit the selection of an attorney to a Special Master...."
7. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that L.M. was, in fact, a victim of Epstein's criminal abuse because L.M. was one of the
5
minor females that the United States Attorney's Office recognized as a victim. L.M. 's sworn
deposition testimony and the adverse inference drawn from Epstein's refusal to testify confiuiii
that Epstein began sexually assaulting L.M. when she was 13 years old and continued to molest
her on more than fifty (50) occasions over three (3) years. Epstein Depo., Attachment #1, at 17
("Q: Did you . . . ever engage in any sexual conduct with L.M.?" A: [Invocation of the Fifth
Amendment].); see also Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010, Attachment #6, at 456 ("Q: LM was an
underage female that you first abused when she was 13 years old; is that correct?" A: [Invocation
of Fifth Amendment].)
8. Epstein was also given ample opportunity to explain why he engaged in sexual
activity with L.M. beginning when L.M. was 13 years old and why he has molested minors on an
everyday basis for years, and he invoked his 5th amendment right rather than provide
explanation. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 11-12, 30-31 (Deposition
Attachment # 7).
9. Epstein also sexually assaulted E.W., beginning when she was 14 years old and
did so on numerous occasions. See E.W. Depo., Attachment #4 at 215-216.
10. Another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was Jane Doe; the abuse
began when Jane Doe was 14 years old. Rather than incriminate himself', Epstein invoked the
5th amendment to questions about him digitally penetrating Doe's vagina, using vibrators on her
vagina and masturbating and ejaculating in her presence. Epstein Depo., April 14, 2010,
Attachment #6, at 420, 464, 468.
11. When Edwards's clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were 13 or 14 years old, each
was brought to Epstein's home multiple times by another underage victim. Epstein engaged in
6
one or more of the following acts with each of the then-minor girls at his mansion: receiving a
topless or completely nude massage; using a vibrator on her vagina; masturbating in her
presence; ejaculating in her presence; touching her breast or buttocks or vagina or the clothes
covering her sexual organs; and demanding that she bring him other underage girls. Epstein and
his co-conspirators used the telephone to contact these girls to entice or induce them into going
to his mansion for sexual abuse. Epstein also made E.W. perform oral sex on him and was to
perfoim sex acts on Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein's live-in sex slave) in Epstein's presence. See
Plaintiff Jane Doe's Notice Regarding Evidence of Similar Acts of Sexual Assault, filed in Jane
Doe v. Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2010), as DE 197, (hereinafter "Rule 413 Notice")
(Exhibit "E"); Jane Doe Depo., Attachment #2, at 379-380; L.M. Depo., Attachment #3, at 416;
E.W. Depo, Attachment #4, at 205.
12. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that yet another of the minor girls Epstein sexually assaulted was C.L. When she was
approximately 15 years old, C.L. was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim.
While a minor, she was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or
more of the following acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely
nude massage on Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her
presence; Epstein ejaculated in her presence; Epstein also demanded that she bring him other
underage girls. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A."
13. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that yet another girl Epstein sexually assault was A.H. When she was approximately 16
years old, she was brought to Epstein's home by another underage victim. While a minor, she
7
was at Epstein's home on multiple occasions. Epstein engaged in one or more of the following
acts with her while she was a minor at his house - topless or completely nude massage on
Epstein; Epstein used a vibrator on her vagina; Epstein masturbated in her presence; Epstein
ejaculated in her presence; Epstein touched her breast or buttock or vagina or the clothes
covering her sexual organs; was made to perform sex acts on Epstein; made to perfoim sex acts
on Nadia Marcinkova in Epstein's presence. Epstein also forcibly raped this underage victim, as
he held her head down against her will and pumped his penis inside her while she was screaming
"No". See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit "E"; Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 41 (specifically
discussing the rape):
"[A.H.] remembered that she climaxed and was removing herself from the
massage table. [A.H.] asked for a sheet of paper and drew the massage table in the
master bathroom and where Epstein, Marcinkova and she were. Epstein turned
[A.H.] on to her stomach on the massage bed and inserted his penis into her
vagina. [A.H.] stated Epstein began to pump his penis in her vagina. [A.H.]
became upset over this. She said her head was being held against the bed forcibly,
as he continued to pump inside her. She screamed no, and Epstein stopped ...."
"[A.H.] advised there were times that she was so sore when she left Epstein's
house. [A.H.] advised she was ripped, torn, in her vagina area. [A.H.] advised she
had difficulty walking to the car after leaving the house because she was so sore."
14. Without detailing each fact known about Epstein's abuse of the many underage
girls, Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe at all relevant times
that Epstein also abused other victims in ways closely similar to those described in the preceding
paragraphs. Epstein's additional victims include the following (among many other) young girls:
S.G.; A.D.; V.A.; N.R.; J.S.; V.Z.; J.A.; F.E.; M.L.; M.D.; D.D.; and D.N. These girls were
between the ages of 13 and 17 when Epstein abused them. See Rule 413 Notice, Exhibit E;
Deposition of E.W., Deposition Attachment #4.
8
15. One of Mr. Epstein's household employees, Mr. Alfredo Rodriguez, saw
numerous underage girls coming into Epstein's mansion for purported "massages." See
Rodriguez Depo. at 242-44 (Deposition Attachment #8). Rodriguez was aware that "sex toys"
and vibrators were found in Epstein's bedroom after the purported massages. Id. at 223-28.
Rodriguez thought what Epstein was doing was wrong, given the extreme youth of the girls he
saw. Id. at 230-31.
16. Alfredo Rodriguez took a journal from Epstein's computer that reflected many of
the names of underage females Epstein abused across the country and the world, including
locations such as Michigan, California, West Palm Beach, New York, New Mexico, and Paris,
France. See Journal (hereinafter "The Journal" or "Holy Grail") (Exhibit "F") (identifying,
among other Epstein acquaintances, females that Rodriguez believes were underage under the
heading labeled "Massages").
17. Rodriguez was later charged in a criminal complaint with obstruction of justice in
connection with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases
against Epstein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at
2, U.S. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit "G"). Rodriguez
stated he needed money because the journal was his "property" and that he was afraid that
Jeffrey Epstein would make him "disappear" unless he had an "insurance policy" (i.e., the
journal). Id. at 3. Because of the importance of the information in the journal to the civil cases,
Mr. Rodriguez called it "The Holy Grail."
18. In the "Holy Grail" or "The Journal," among the many names listed (along with
the abused girls) are some of the people that Epstein alleges in his Complaint had "no connection
9
whatsoever" with the litigation in this case. See, e.g., Journal, Exhibit F, at 85 (Donald Trump);
at 9 (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under "Doug Bands").
Federal Investigation and Plea Agreement With Epstein
19. In approximately 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern
District of Florida learned of Epstein's repeated sexual abuse of minor girls. They began a
criminal investigation into federal offenses related to his crimes. See U.S. Attorney's
Correspondence, Exhibit "C".
20. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that to avoid the Government learning about his abuse of minor girls, Epstein threatened
his employees and demanded that they not cooperate with the government. Epstein's aggressive
witness tampering was so severe that the United States Attorney's Office prepared negotiated
plea agreements containing these charges. For example, in a September 18, 2007, email from
AUSA Villafacia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "H"), she attached the proposed plea
agreement describing Epstein's witness tampering as follows:
"UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER"
On August 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason
Richards traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a federal grand
jury subpoena with an investigation pending in the Southern District of Florida.
Ms. Groff works as the personal assistant of the defendant. Ms. Groff began
speaking with the agents and then excused herself to go upstairs to check on her
sleeping child. While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey
Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein
instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents and reprimanded her for
allowing them into her home. Mr. Epstein applied pressure to keep Ms. Groff
from complying with the grand jury subpoenas that the agents had served upon
her. In particular, Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents
and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena and pressured her to delay her
10
appearance before the grand jury in the Southern District of Florida. This
conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian
aircraft in Miami in the Southern District of Florida. His pilot had filed a flight
plan showing the parties were about to return to Teterboro, NJ. After the
conversation with Ms. Groff, Mr. Epstein became concerned that the FBI would
try to serve his traveling companion, Nadia Marcinkova, with a similar grand jury
subpoena. In fact, the agents were preparing to serve Ms. Marcinkova with a
target letter when the flight landed in Teterboro. Mr. Epstein then redirected his
airplane, making the pilot file a new flight plan to travel to the US Virgin Islands
instead of the New York City area, thereby keeping the Special Agents from
serving the target letter on Nadia Marcinkova. During the flight, the defendant
verbally harassed Ms. Marcinkova, harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate
with the grand jury's investigation, thereby hindering and dissuading her from
reporting the commission of a violation of federal law to a law enforcement
officer, namely, Special Agents of the FBI. Epstein also threatened and harassed
Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well.
21. Edwards learned that the Palm Beach police department investigation ultimately
led to the execution of a search warrant at Epstein's mansion in October 2005. See Police
Incident Report, Exhibit "A".
22. Edwards learned that at around the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department
also began investigating Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls. They also collected evidence of
Epstein's involvement with minor girls and his obsession with training sex slaves, including
pulling information from Epstein's trash. Their investigation showed that Epstein ordered from
Arnazon.com on about September 4, 2005, such books as: SM101: A Realistic Introduction, by
Jay Wiseman; SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude - Principles, Skills, and Tools, by Guy
Baldwin; and Training with Miss Abernathy: A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners,
by Christina Abernathy. See Receipt for Sex Slave Books (Exhibit "I").
23. The Palm Beach incident reports provided Edwards with the names of numerous
witnesses that participated in Epstein's child molestation criminal enterprise and also provided
11
Edwards with some insight into how far-reaching Epstein's power was and how addicted Epstein
was to sex with children. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A".
24. The Palm Beach Police Department also collected Epstein's message pads, which
provided other names of people that also knew Epstein's scheme to molest children. See
Message Pads (Exhibit "J") (note: the names of underage females have been redacted to protect
the anonymity of the underage sex abuse victims). Those message pads show clear indication
that Epstein's staff was frequently working to schedule multiple young girls between the ages of
12 and 16 years old literally every day, often two or three times per day. Id.
25. In light of all of the infatuation of numerous crimes committed by Epstein,
Edwards learned that the U.S. Attorney's Office began preparing the filing of federal criminal
charges against Epstein. For example, in addition to the witness tampering and money
laundering charges the U.S. Attorney's Office prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-
page indictment of Epstein related to his sexual abuse of children. On September 19, 2007, at
12:14 PM, AUSA Villafafia wrote to Epstein's counsel, Jay Lefkowitz, "Jay - I hate to have to be
firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date
when this has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall apart, be left in a less
advantageous position than before the negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-
page indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these negotiations. There has to be
an ending date, and that date is Monday." These and other communications are within the
correspondence attached as Composite Exhibit "C."
26. Edwards learned that rather than face the filing of federal felony criminal charges,
Epstein (through his attorneys) engaged in plea bargain discussions. As a result of those
12
discussions, on September 24, 2007, Epstein signed an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to an indictment pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County
charging him with solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution.
Epstein also agreed that he would receive a thirty month sentence, including 18 months of jail
time and 12 months of community control. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to
pursue any federal charges against Epstein. See Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "K").
27. Part of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that Epstein negotiated was a provision in
which the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators. The co-
conspirators procured minor females to be molested by Epstein. One of the co-conspirators -
Nadia Marcinkova -even participated in the sex acts with minors (including E.W.) and Epstein.
See Incident Report, Exhibit "A", at 40-42, 49-51; Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova, April 13,
2010, (hereinafter "Marcinkova Depo.") at 11 (Deposition attachment #9).
28. Under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein was to use his "best efforts" to
enter into his guilty pleas by October 26, 2007. However, Edwards learned that Epstein violated
his agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office to do so and delayed entry of his plea. See Letter
from U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta to Lilly Ann Sanchez, Dec. 19, 2007 (Exhibit "L").
29. On January 10, 2008 and again on May 30, 2008 E.W. and L.M. received letters
from the FBI advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation. This can be a
lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough
investigation." Letters attached at Composite Exhibit "M". This document is evidence that the
FBI did not notify E.W. and L.M. that a plea agreement had already been reached that would
13
block federal prosecution of Epstein. Nor did the FBI notify E.W. and L.M. of any of the parts of
the plea agreement. Nor did the FBI or other federal authorities confer with E.W. and L.M.
about the plea. See id.
30. In 2008, Edwards believed in good faith that criminal prosecution of Epstein was
extremely important to his clients E.W. and L.M. and that they desired to be consulted by the
FBI and/or other representatives of the federal government about the prosecution of Epstein.
The letters that they had received around January 10, 2008, suggested that a criminal
investigation of Epstein was on-going and that they would be contacted before the federal
government reached any final resolution of that investigation. See id.
Edwards Agrees to Serve as Legal Counsel for Three Victims of Epstein 's Sexual
Assaults
31. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida,
practicing as a sole practitioner. As a fornler prosecutor, he was well versed in civil cases that
involved criminal acts, including sexual assaults. Three of the many girls Epstein had abused —
L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — all requested that Edwards represent them civilly and secure
appropriate monetary damages against Epstein for repeated acts of sexual abuse while they were
minor girls. Two of the girls (L.M. and E.W.) also requested that Edwards represent them in
connection with a concern that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Attorney's
Office might be arranging a plea bargain for the criminal offenses committed by Epstein without
providing them the legal rights to which they were entitled (including the right to be notified of
plea discussions and the right to confer with prosecutors about any plea arrangement). See
14
Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. at ¶1 - 2, ¶4 (hereinafter "Edwards Affidavit") (Exhibit
32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008,
attorney Edwards agreed to represent Jane Doe; and, on July 7, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to
represent L.M. in connection with the sexual assaults committed by Epstein and to insure that
their rights as victims of crimes were protected in the criminal process on-going against Epstein.
Mr. Edwards and his three clients executed written retention agreements. See id. at ¶2.
33. In mid June of 2008, Edwards contacted AUSA Villafeia to infoiin her that he
represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafalia did not advise that a plea
agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal
prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafalia mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA
Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and infoimation that
Epstein had sexually molested many underage minor females, including E.W., LM, and Jane
Doe. See id. at ¶4.
34. Edwards also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the infoimation that they
had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's
Office, declined to provide any such infoiniation to Edwards. It similarly declined to provide
any such information to the other attorneys who represented victims of Epstein's sexual assaults.
At the very least, this includes the items that were confiscated in the search warrant of Epstein's
home, including dildos, vibrators, massage table, oils, and additional message pads. See
Property Receipt (Exhibit "0").
15
35. On Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA Villafaiia received a
copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement and learned that the plea was scheduled for 8:30
a.m., Monday, June 30, 2008. AUSA Villafalia called Edwards to provide notice to his clients
regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafafia did not tell Attorney Edwards that the guilty pleas in
state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea
agreement. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at ¶6.
36. Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims of
federal crimes — including E.W. and L.M. — are entitled to basic rights during any plea
bargaining process, including the right to be treated with fairness, the right to confer with
prosecutors regarding any plea, and the right to be heard regarding any plea. The process that
was followed leading to the non-prosecution of Epstein violated these rights of E.W. and L.M.
See Emergency Petn. for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights, No. 9:08-CV-80736-
KAM (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Exhibit "P").
37. Because of the violation of the CVRA, on July 7, 2008, Edwards filed an action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, seeking to
enforce the rights of E.W. and L.M. That action alleged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had
failed to provide E.W. and L.M. the rights to which they were entitled under the Act, including
the right to be notified about a plea agreement and to confer with prosecutors regarding it. See
Id.
38. On July 11, 2008, Edwards took E.W. and L.M. with him to the hearing on the
CVRA action. It was only at this hearing that both victims learned for the first time that the plea
deal was already done with Epstein and that the criminal case against Epstein had been
16
effectively terminated by the U.S. Attorney's office. See Hearing Transcript, July 11, 2008
(Exhibit "Q").
39. Edwards learned that Jane Doe felt so strongly that the plea bargain was
inappropriate that she made her own determination to appear on a television program and
exercise her First Amendment rights to criticize the unduly lenient plea bargain Epstein received
in a criminal case.
40. The CVRA action that Edwards filed was recently administratively closed and
Edwards filed a Motion to reopen that proceeding. See No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.).
Epstein 's Entry of Guilty Pleas to Sex Offenses
41. Ultimately, on June 30, 2008, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach
County, Florida, defendant Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Florida state crimes
involving the solicitation of minors for prostitution and the procurement of minors for the
purposes of prostitution. See Plea Colloquy (Exhibit "R").
42. As a condition of that plea, and in exchange for the Federal Government not
prosecuting the Defendant, Epstein additionally entered into an agreement with the Federal
Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34) other young girls could receive
payments from him under the federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child
sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. As had been agreed months before, the U.S. Attorney's Office
did not prosecute Epstein federally for his sexual abuse of these minor girls. See Addendum to
Non-Prosecution Agreement (Exhibit "5") (in redacted form to protect the identities of the
minors involved).
17
43. Because Epstein became a convicted sex offender, he was not to have contact
with any of his victims. During the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, Palm Beach
Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or
indirect" with any victims. She also expressly stated that her no-contact order applied to "all of
the victims." Similar orders were entered by the federal court handling some of the civil cases
against Epstein. The federal court stated that it "finds it necessary to state clearly that Defendant
is under this court's order not to have direct or indirect contact with any plaintiffs . . . ." Order,
Case No. 9:08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla. 2008), [DE 238] at 4-5 (emphasis added); see also Order,
Case No. 9:08-cv-80893, [DE 193] at 2 (emphasis added).
Edwards Files Civil Suits Against Epstein
44. Edwards had a good faith belief that his clients felt angry and betrayed by the
criminal system and wished to prosecute and punish Epstein for his crimes against them in
whatever avenue remained open to them. On August 12, 2008, at the request of his client Jane
Doe, Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual
assault of Jane Doe. See Edwards Affidavit, "N" at 17. Included in this complaint was a RICO
count that explained how Epstein ran a criminal conspiracy to procure young girls for him to
sexually abuse. See Complaint, Jane Doe v. Epstein (Exhibit "T").
45. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client E.W., Brad Edwards filed a civil
suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of E.W. See Complaint,
E.W. v. Epstein (Exhibit "U").
18
46. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client L.M.., Brad Edwards filed a civil
suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint,
L.M. v. Epstein, (Exhibit "V").
47. Jane Doe's federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than
$50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord with other
civil suits that were filed against Epstein (before any lawsuit filed by Edwards). See Complaint,
Jane Doe #4 v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Mermelstein, PA).
48. At about the same time as Edwards filed his three lawsuits against Epstein, other
civil attorneys were filing similar lawsuits against Epstein. For example, on or about April 14,
2008 another law firm, Herman and Mellnelstein, filed the first civil action against Epstein on
behalf of one of its seven clients who were molested by Epstein. The complaints that attorney
Herman filed on behalf of his seven clients were similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that
Edwards filed on behalf of his three clients. See id.
49. Over the next year and a half, more than 20 other similar civil actions were filed by
various attorneys against Epstein alleging sexual assault of minor girls. These complaints were
also similar in tenor and tone to the complaint that Edwards filed on behalf of his clients. These
complaints are all public record and have not been attached, but are available in this Court's files
and the files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
50. In addition to the complaints filed against Epstein in Florida, a female in New York,
Ava Cordero, filed a lawsuit against Epstein in New York making similar allegations - that
Epstein paid her for a massage then forced her to give him oral sex and molested her in other
ways when she was only 16 years old. Cordero was born a male, and in her complaint she
19
alleges that Epstein told her during the "massage", "I love how young you are. You have a tight
butt like a baby". See Jeff Epstein Sued for "Repeated Sexual Assaults" on Teen, New York
Post, October 17, 2007, by Dareh Gregorian, link at:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_44z1WyLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbPj se s si onid=6CA3
EBF1BEF68F5DE14BFB2CAA5C37E0. See Article attached hereto as Exhibit "X".
51. Edwards's three complaints against Epstein contained less detail about sexual
abuse than (as one example) a complaint filed by attorney Robert Josephsberg from the law firm
of Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit "B"). As recounted in
detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her
and lured her to Epstein's house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them
and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the
Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years
and was forced to have sex with not only Maxwell and Epstein but also other politicians,
businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc. She was even made to watch Epstein have sex with
three 12-year-old French girls that were sent to him for his birthday by a French citizen that is a
friend of Epstein's. Luckily, Jane Doe 102 escaped to Australia to get away from Epstein and
Maxwell's sexual abuse.
52. Edwards learned that in addition to civil suits that were filed in court against
Epstein, at around the same time other attorneys engaged in pre-filing settlement discussions
with Epstein. Rather than face filed civil suits in these cases, Epstein paid money settlements to
more than 15 other women who had sexually abused while they were minors. See articles
regarding settlements attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "Y."
20
Epstein's Obstruction of Normal Discovery and Attacks on His Victims
53. Once Edwards filed his civil complaints for his three clients, he began the normal
process of discovery for cases such as these. He sent standard discovery requests to Epstein
about his sexual abuse of the minor girls, including requests for admissions, request for
production, and interrogatories. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N", at Till 1-19 and 25.
Rather than answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse and his conspiracy for
procuring minor girls for him to abuse, Epstein invoked his 5th amendment right against self-
incrimination. An example of Epstein's refusal to answer is attached as Composite Exhibit "Z"
(original discovery propounded to Epstein and his responses invoking 5th amendment).
54. During the discovery phase of the civil cases filed against Epstein, Epstein's
deposition was taken at least five times. During all of those depositions, Epstein refused to
answer any substantive questions about his sexual abuse of minor girls. See, e.g., Deposition
Attachments 1, 6 and 7.
55. During these depositions, Epstein further attempted to obstruct legitimate
questioning by inserting a variety of irrelevant infatuation about his case. As one of
innumerable examples, on March 8, 2010, Mr. Horowitz, representing seven victims, Jane Doe's
2-8, asked, "Q: In 2004, did you rub Jane Doe 3's vagina? A: Excuse me. I'd like to answer that
question, as I would like to answer mostly every question you've asked me here today; however,
upon advice of counsel, I cannot answer that question. They've advised me I must assert my
Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights against self--excuse
me, against--under the Constitution. And though your partner, Jeffrey Heiman, was disbarred
after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' partner sits in jail for
21
fabricating cases of a sexual nature fleecing unsuspecting Florida investors and others out of
millions of dollars for cases of a sexual nature with--I'd like to answer your questions; however if
I--I'm told that if I do so, I risk losing my counsel's representation; therefore I must accept their
advice." Epstein deposition, March 8, 2010, at 106 (Deposition attachment #10).
56. When Edwards had the opportunity to take Epstein's deposition, he only asked
reasonable questions, all of which related to the merits of the cases against Epstein. All
depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to
this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 111 and Deposition attachments #1, 6, 7, 10,
11, 12, and 13. Cf. with Deposition of Epstein taken by an attorney representing BB (one in
which Edwards was not participating), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-dqoEyYXx4; and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCNiY1tW-r0
57. Edwards's efforts to obtain infoimation about Epstein's organization for
procuring young girls was also blocked because Epstein's co-conspirators took the Fifth.
Deposition of Sarah Kellen, March 24, 2010 (hereinafter "Kellen Depo.") (Deposition
attachment #14); Deposition of Nadia Marcinkova, April 13, 2010, (Deposition attachment #9);
Deposition of Adriana Mucinska Ross, March 15, 2010 (hereinafter "Ross Depo.") (Deposition
attachment #15). Each of these co-conspirators invoked their respective rights against self-
incrimination as to all relevant questions, and the depositions have been attached.
58. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe Sarah Kellen was an employee of Epstein's and had been identified as a defendant in at
least one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to
be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on
22
all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's
mansion to be sexually abused. Reinhart had previously been an Assistant United States
Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida when Epstein was
being investigated criminally by Reinhart's office. Reinhart left the United States Attorney's
Office and was immediately hired by Epstein to represent Epstein's pilots and certain co-
conspirators during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.
59. Edwards also had other lines of legitimate discovery blocked through the efforts
of Epstein and others. For example, Edwards learned through deposition that Ghislaine Maxwell
was involved in managing Epstein's affairs and companies. See deposition of Epstein's house
manager Janusz Banziak, February 16, 2010 at page 14, lines 20-23 (Deposition Attachment
#16); See deposition of Epstein's housekeeper Louella Rabuyo, October 20, 2009, page 9, lines
17-25 (Deposition Attachment #17); See deposition of Epstein's pilot Larry Eugene Morrison,
October 6, 2009, page 102-103 (Deposition Attachment #18); See deposition of Alfredo
Rodriguez, August 7, 2009, page 302-306 and 348 (Deposition Attachment #8); See also Prince
Andrew's Friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, Some Underage Girls and A Very Disturbing Story,
September 23, 2007 by Wendy Leigh, link at
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=18950HANNA SJOBERG. Exhibit "AA".
60. Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Maxwell took photos of girls without the girls'
knowledge, kept the images on her computer, knew the names of the underage girls and their
respective phone numbers and other underage victims were molested by Epstein and Maxwell
together. See Deposition of Rodriguez, Deposition attachment # 8 at 64, 169-170 and 236.
23
61. In reasonable reliance on this and other infoimation, Edwards served Maxwell for
deposition in 2009. See Deposition Notice attached as Exhibit "BB." Maxwell was represented
by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of Cohen and Gresser, and Edwards understood that her
attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was reluctant to give her
deposition, and Edwards tried to work with her attorney to take her deposition on teims that
would be acceptable to both sides. The result was the attached confidentiality agreement, under
which Maxwell agreed to drop any objections to the deposition, attached hereto as Exhibit "CC."
Maxwell, however, contrived to avoid the deposition. On June 29, 2010, one day before
Edwards was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney informed Edwards that
Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently flying to England with no
intention of returning to the United States. Despite that assertion, Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact
in the country on July 31, 2010, as she attended the wedding of Chelsea Clinton (former
President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for OK magazine. Photos
from Issue 809 of the publication See US Weekly dated August 16, 2010 are attached hereto as
Exhibit "DD" and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶12.
62. Maxwell is not the only important witness to lie to avoid deposition by Edwards.
Upon review of the message pads that were taken from Epstein's home in the police trash pulls,
see Exhibit "J" supra, many were from Jean Luc Brunel, a French citizen and one of Epstein's
closest pals. He left messages for Epstein. One dated 4/1/05 said, "He has a teacher for you to
teach you how to speak Russian. She is 2x8 years old, not blonde. Lessons are free and you can
have your 1st today if you call." See Messages taken from Jean Luc Brunel are attached hereto as
Exhibit "EE." In light of these circumstances of the case, this message reasonably suggested to
24
Edwards that Brunel might have been procuring two eight-year-old girls for Epstein to sexually
abuse. According to widely circulated press reports reviewed by Edwards, Brunel is in his
sixties and has a reputation throughout the world (and especially in the modeling industry) as a
cocaine addict that has for years molested children through modeling agencies while acting as
their agent — conduct that has been the subject of critical reports, books, several news articles,
and a 60 Minutes documentary on Brunel's sexual exploitation of underage models. See
http://bradmillershero.blogspot.com/2010/08/women-are-objects.html, attached hereto as Exhibit
63. Edwards learned that Brunel is also someone that visited Epstein on
approximately 67 occasions while Epstein was in jail. See Epstein's jail visitor log attached as
Exhibit "GG."
64. Edwards learned that Brunel currently runs the modeling agency MC2, a company
for which Epstein provides financial support. See Message Pad's attached as Exhibit "J" supra
and Sworn Statement of MC2 employee Maritza Vasquez, June 15, 2010, "Maritza Vasquez
Sworn Statement" attached at Exhibit "HH" at 1-16.
65. Employees of MC2 told Edwards that Epstein's numerous condos at 301 East 66
Street in New York were used to house young models. Edwards was told that MC2 modeling
agency, affiliated with Epstein and Brunel brought underage girls from all over the world,
promising them modeling contracts. Epstein and Brunel would then obtain a visa for these girls,
then would charge the underage girls rent, presumably to live as underage prostitutes in the
condos. See Maritza Vasquez Sworn Statement, Exhibit "HH" at 7-10, 12-15, 29-30, 39-41, 59-
60 and 62-67.
25
66. In view of this information suggesting Brunel could provide significant evidence
of Epstein's trafficking in young girls for sexual abuse, Edwards had Brunel served in New York
for deposition. See Notice of Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel attached hereto as Exhibit "II."
Before the deposition took place, Brunel's attorney (Tama Kudman of West Palm Beach)
contacted Edwards to delay the deposition date. Eventually Kudman informed Edwards in
January 2009 that Brunel had left the country and was back in France with no plans to return.
This information was untrue; Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach. See
Banasiak deposition, deposition attachment #16 at 154-160 and 172-175; see also pages from
Epstein's probation file evidencing Jean Luc Brunel (JLB) staying at his house during that
relevant period of time attached Exhibit "JJ". As a result, Edwards filed a Motion for Contempt,
attached hereto as Exhibit "KK" (Because Epstein settled this case, the motion was never ruled
upon.)
67. Edwards was also informed that Epstein paid for not only Brunel's representation
during the civil process but also paid for legal representation for Sarah Kellen (Epstein's
executive assistant and procurer of girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein's personal
pilot), Dave Rogers (Epstein's personal pilot), Larry Harrison (Epstein's personal pilot), Louella
Rabuyo (Epstein's housekeeper), Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein's live-in sex slave), Ghislaine
Maxwell (manager of Epstein's affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein's brother), and
Janusz Banasiak (Epstein's house manager) It was nearly impossible to take a deposition of
someone that would have helpful information that was not represented by an attorney paid for by
Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.
26
68. While Epstein and others were preventing any legitimate discovery into his sexual
abuse of minor girls, at the same time he was engaging (through his attorneys) in brutal
questioning of the girls who had filed civil suits against him, questioning so savage that it made
local headlines. See Jane Musgrave, Victims Seeking Sex offender's Millions See Painful Pasts
Used Against Them, Palm Beach Post News, Jan. 23, 2010, available at
hap ://www.palmbeachpost. com/news/crime/vi ctims-s eeking-s ex-offenders-millions-see-painful-
pasts-192988.html attached hereto as Exhibit "LL."
Edwards Pursues Other Lines of Discovery
69. Because of Epstein's thwarting of discovery and attacks on Edwards's clients,
Edwards was forced to pursue other avenues of discovery. Edwards only pursued legitimate
discovery designed to further the cases filed against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit
"N" at 1-111.
70. Edwards notified Epstein's attorneys of his intent to take Bill Clinton's deposition.
Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Clinton was friends with Ghislaine
Maxwell who was Epstein's longtime companion and helped to run Epstein's companies, kept
images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for
Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and
photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her
computer; (b) it was national news when Clinton traveled with Epstein aboard Epstein's private
plane to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend. (c) the complaint
filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that she was required by Epstein to be
sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty,
27
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" —
categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into. The flight logs showed Clinton
traveling on Epstein's plane on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005. See Flight logs
attached hereto as Exhibit "MM." Clinton traveled on many of those flights with Ghislaine
Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, and Adriana Mucinska, - all employees and/or co-conspirators of
Epstein's that were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse. The
documents clearly show that Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then
suddenly stopped - raising the suspicion that the friendship abruptly ,ended, perhaps because of
events related to Epstein's sexual abuse of children. Epstein's personal phone directory from his
computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including
those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton's personal
numbers. This information certainly leads one to believe that Clinton might well be a source of
relevant information and efforts to obtain discovery from him were reasonably calculated to lead
to admissible evidence. See Exhibits "B", "F" "AA", "DD", and "MM" and Edwards Affidavit,
Exhibit "N" at ¶15.
71. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., provided notice that he intended to take the deposition
of Donald Trump. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) The message pads
confiscated from Epstein's home indicated that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach
mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to my Edwards's clients'
complaints; (b) Trump was quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "I've known
Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes
beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it --
28
Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals
with a passel of Nobel Prize—winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited,
socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin
Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world began to wonder
who he is. By Landon Thomas Jr. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit "NN") (c) Trump
allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually
assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint alleged that Jane Doe
102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be
Maxwell and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e) Mark Epstein (Jeffrrey Epstein's brother) testified
that Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged
was used to have sex with underage girls); (f) Trump had been to Epstein's home in Palm Beach;
(g) Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump,
including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and
houseman. Based on this information, Edwards reasonably believed that Trump might have
relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided
notice of a possible deposition. See deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009, at 48-50
(Deposition Attachment #19); See Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "F";
"Exhibit"J"; "N" and See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶13.
72. Edwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. Edwards
possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with
Epstein for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th
book... The only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The
29
Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky Ward on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity Fair (See
article attached as Exhibit "00"); (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that
Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during the years when Epstein was assaulting minor
females on a daily basis; (d) Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times
when underage females where there being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez
deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz reportedly assisted in attempting to
persuade the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that because the underage females alleged to
have been victims of Epstein's abuse lacked credibility and could not be believed that they were
at Epstein's house, when Dershowitz himself was an eyewitness to their presence at the house;
(f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually exploited by not only
Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians,
businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz
and acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into; (g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was
on Epstein's plane on several occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot
and information (described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the
plane; (h) Epstein donated $30 Million one year to the university at which Dershowitz teaches.
Based on this infoli__iation, Edwards had a reasonable basis to believe that Dershowitz might
have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly
provided notice of a possible deposition. See Dershowitz letters to the State Attorney's office
attached as Exhibit "PP"; Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez at 278-280; Flight Logs Exhibit
"MM"; Exhibits "B" and "00"; and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶14.
30
73. Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take
the deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by
the law firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N"
at ¶16.
74. Edwards gave notice that he intended to take David Copperfield's deposition.
Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so. Epstein's housekeeper and one of the only
witnesses who did not appear for deposition with an Epstein bought attorney, Alfredo Rodriguez,
testified that David Copperfield was a guest at Epstein's house on several occasions. His name
also appears frequently in the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house. It has been
publicly reported that Copperfield himself has had allegations of sexual misconduct made against
him by women claiming he sexually abused them, and one of Epstein's sexual assault victims
also alleged that Copperfield had touched her in an improper sexual way while she was at
Epstein's house. Mr. Copperfield likely has relevant information and deposition was reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at
¶17.
75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible
witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal
pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. There was
information indicating that Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances
of the case, raised the reasonable inference he was sexually abusing these girls as he had abused
girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. Richardson had also returned campaign donations that
were given to him by Epstein, indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein
31
with which he did not want to be associated. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever
subpoenaed to testify. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶18.
76. Edwards learned of allegations that Epstein engaged in sexual abuse of minors on
his private aircraft. See Jane Doe 102 Complaint, Exhibit "B." Accordingly, Edwards pursued
discovery to confirm these allegations.
77. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was proper in the cases brought by Edwards
against Epstein. Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim
through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal
enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed
the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing
Edwards' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects
mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against
Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive damages. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit
"N" at ¶19.
78. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was also proper in the cases brought by
Edwards against Epstein because of the need to obtain evidence of a federal nexus. Edwards's
client Jane Doe was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255
is a federal statute which (unlike relevant state statutes) established a minimum level of recovery
for victims of the violation of its provisions. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a
"federal nexus" to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a
nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of telephone to arrange for girls to be abused;
and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation,
32
Edwards anticipated that Epstein would argue that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was
inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein filed a summary judgment motion raising
this argument. In response, the other attorneys and Edwards representing Jane Doe used the
flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, explaining that the flight
logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the purpose of facilitating
his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, Judge Marra did not
rule on the summary judgment motion.
79. Edwards had further reason to believe and did in fact believe that the pilot and
flight logs might contain relevant evidence for the cases against Epstein. Jane Doe No. 102's
complaint outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as
12 years old and alleged that Epstein's plane was used to transport underage females to be
sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly were a potential source of
information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of
Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this
information, Edwards reasonably pursued the flight logs in discovery.
80. In the fall of 2009, Epstein gave a recorded interview to George Rush, a reporter
with the New York Daily News about pending legal proceedings. In that interview, Epstein
demonstrated an utter lack of remorse for his crimes (but indirectly admitted his crimes) by
stating:
• People do not like it when people make good and that was one reason he (Epstein)
was being targeted by civil suits filed by young girls in Florida;
• He (Epstein) had done nothing wrong;
33
• He (Epstein) had gone to jail in Florida for soliciting prostitution for no reason;
• If the same thing (i.e., sexual abuse of minor girls) had happened in New York, he
(Epstein) would have received only a $200 fine;
• Bradley J. Edwards was the one causing all of Epstein's problems (i.e., the civil
suits brought by Jane Doe and other girls);
• L.M. came to him as a prostitute and a drug user (i.e., came to Epstein for sex,
rather than Epstein pursuing her);
• All the girls suing him are only trying to get a meal ticket;
• The only thing he might have done wrong was to maybe cross the line a little too
closely;
• He (Epstein) was very upset that Edwards had subpoenaed Ghisline Maxwell, that
she was a good person that did nothing wrong (i.e., had done nothing wrong even
though she helped procure young girls to satisfy Epstein's sexual desires);
• With regard to Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein, which involved an allegation that Epstein
had repeatedly sexually abused a 15-year-old girl, forced her to have sex with his
friends, and flew her on his private plane nationally and internationally for the
purposes of sexually molesting and abusing her, he (Epstein) flippantly said that
the case was dismissed, indicating that the allegations were ridiculous and untrue.
See Affidavit of Michael J. Fisten attached hereto as Exhibit "QQ."
81. The Rush interview also demonstrated perjury (a federal crime) on the part of
Epstein. Epstein lied about not knowing George Rush. See Epstein Deposition, February 17,
2010, taken in L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, case 50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155
line 9, (Deposition attachment #7), wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not
recognize George Rush from the New York Daily News. This impression was given despite the
fact that he gave a lengthy personal interview about details of the case that was tape recorded
with George Rush.
34
Epstein 's Harassment of Witnesses Against Him
82. At all relevant times Edwards has a good faith basis to believe and did in fact
believe that Epstein engaged in threatening witnesses. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A" at p. 82,
U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C" - Indictments drafted by Federal Government
against Epstein; and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶11.
83. Despite three no contact orders entered against Epstein (see Exhibit C, supra),
Edwards learned that Epstein continued to harass his victims. For example, Jane Doe had a trial
set for her civil case against him on July 19, 2010. As that trial date approached, defendant
Epstein intimidated her in violation of the judicial no-contact orders. On July 1, 2010, he had a
"private investigator" tail Jane Doe — following her every move, stopping when she stopped,
driving when she drove, refusing to pass when she pulled over. When Jane Doe ultimately drove
to her home, the "private investigator" then parked in his car approximately 25 feet from Jane
Doe house and flashed his high beam lights intermittently into the home. Even more
threateningly, at about 10:30 p.m., when Jane Doe fled her home in the company of a retired
police officer employed by Jane Doe's counsel, the "private investigator" attempted to follow
Jane Doe despite a request not to do so. The retired officer successfully took evasive action and
placed Jane Doe in a secure, undisclosed location that night. Other harassing actions against
Jane Doe also followed. See Motion for Contempt filed by Edwards in Jane Doe v. Epstein
detailing the event, including Fisten Affidavit attached to Motion, Composite Exhibit "RR."
Epstein Settlement of Civil Claims Against Him for Sexual Abuse of Children
84. The civil cases Edwards filed against Epstein on behalf of L.M., E.W., and Jane
Doe were reasonably perceived by Edwards to be very strong cases. Because Epstein had
35
sexually assaulted these girls, he had committed several serious torts against them and would be
liable to them for appropriate damages. See Preceding Undisputed Facts. Because of the
outrageousness of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, Edwards reasonably expected that
Epstein would also be liable for punitive damages to the girls. Because Edwards could show that
Epstein had molested children for years and designed a complex premeditated scheme to procure
different minors everyday to satisfy his addiction to sex with minors, the punitive damages
would have to be sufficient to deter him from this illegal conduct that he had engaged in daily for
years. Epstein was and is a billionaire. See Complaint, ¶49 (referring to "Palm Beach
Billionaire"); see also Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 172-176 (Deposition
Attachment #7) (taking the Fifth when asked whether he is a billionaire). Accordingly, Edwards
reasonably believed the punitive damages that would have to be awarded against Epstein would
have been substantial enough to punish him severely enough for his past conduct as well as deter
him from repeating his offenses in the future. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶19.
85. On July 6, 2010, rather than face trial for the civil suits that had been filed against
him by L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, defendant Epstein settled the cases against him. The terms of
the settlement are confidential. The settlement amounts are highly probative in the instant action
as Epstein bases his claims that Edwards was involved in the Ponzi scheme on Epstein's inability
to settle the L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe cases for "minimal value". His continued inability to
settle the claims for "minimal value" after the Ponzi scheme was uncovered would be highly
probative in discrediting any causal relationship between the Ponzi scheme and Edwards's
settlement negotiations. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶21.
Edwards Non-Involvement in Fraud by Scott Rothstein
36
86. From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein
appears to have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler PA.
("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement
agreements had been reached with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment
and/or whistle-blower actions. Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential
settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott
W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS."
87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used to lure investors
into his Ponzi scheme were the cases against Epstein that were being handled by Bradley J.
Edwards, Esq. Edwards had no knowledge of the fraud or any such use of the Epstein cases. See
Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶9.
88. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., joined RRA in about April 2009 and left RRA in
November 2009 — a period of less than one year. Edwards would not have joined RRA had he
been aware that Scott Rothstein was running a giant Ponzi scheme at the fitat. Edwards left
RRA shortly after learning of Rothstein's fraudulent scheme. Id. at ¶8.
89. At no time prior to the public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme did Edwards
know or have reason to believe that Rothstein was using legitimate claims that Edwards was
prosecuting against Epstein for any fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate purpose. Id. at ¶20.
90. Edwards never substantively discussed the merits of any of his three cases against
Epstein with Rothstein. See Deposition of Bradley J. Edwards taken March 23, 2010, at 110-16.
(hereinafter "Edwards Depo") (Deposition Attachment #22).
37
91. On July 20, 2010, Bradley Edwards received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's
Ponzi scheme. The letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that Edwards
was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed
Edwards of his rights as a victim of Rothstein's fraud and promised to keep Edwards informed
about subsequent developments in Rothstein's prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit
92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards,
Esq., raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott
Rothstein. After investigating the claim, the Florida Bar dismissed this complaint. See Edwards
Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶23.
Epstein Takes the Fifth When Asked Substantive Questions About His Claims Against Edwards
93. On March 17, 2010, defendant Epstein was deposed about his lawsuit against
Edwards. Rather than answer substantive questions about his lawsuit, Epstein repeatedly
invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. See Epstein Depo. taken 3/17/10, Deposition
Attachment #1.
94. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question:
"Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?"
Id. at 34.
95. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than name people in California that
Edwards had tried to depose to increase the settlement value of the civil suit he was handling. Id.
at 37.
38
96. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you
know former President Clinton personally." Id.
97. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Are you
now telling us that there were claims against you that were fabricated by Mr. Edwards?" Id. at
39.
98. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question, "Well,
which of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were fabricated." Id.
99. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "What is
the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?" Id. at 45.
100. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer a question about the
actual value of the claim of L.M. and Jane Doe against him. Id.
101. In his deposition, taken prior to the settlement of Edwards's clients claims against
Epstein, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there any pending claim
against you which you contend is fabricated?" Id. at 71.
102. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
ever have damaging evidence in your garbage?" Id. at 74.
103. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did
sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" Id. at 88.
104. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Does a
flight log kept for a private jet used by you contain the names of celebrities, dignitaries or
international figures?" Id. at 89.
39
105. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at
89.
106. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id. at
90.
107. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 91-
92.
108. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
ever socialize with David Copperfield in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at
109. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever socialized with Mr. Richardson [Governor of New Mexico and foimerly U.S.
Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations] in the presence of females under the age
of 18." Id. at 94.
110. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever sexually abused children?" Id. at 95.
111. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you
have staff members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is,
females under the age of 18." Id. at 97-98.
112. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "On how
many occasions did you solicit prostitution." Id. at 102.
40
113. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many minors have you procured for prostitution?" Id. at 104.
114. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have
you ever coerced, induced or enticed any minor to engage in any sexual act with you?" Id. at
107.
115. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many times have you engaged in fondling underage females?" Id. at 108.
116. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How
many times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" Id. at 110.
117. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you
have a personal sexual preference for children?" Id. at 111-12.
118. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Your
Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49, says that `RRA and the litigation team took an emotionally
driven set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach
billionaire, and sought to turn it into a goldmine,' end of quote. Who is the Palm Beach
billionaire referred to in that sentence?" Id. at 112-13.
119. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Who are
the people who are authorized to make payment [to your lawyers] on your behalf?" Id. at 120.
120. In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there
anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you
contend to be false?" Id. at 128.
41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November_____ 2010 a copy of the foregoing has been
served via Fax and U.S. Mail to all those on the attached service list.
By:
Jack Scarola
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
(561) 686 10
(561 84-581 (fax)
JAC AROLA
Flo ar No.: 169440
42
SERVICE LIST
Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
Joseph L. Acketman, Esq.
FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A.
901 Phillips Point West
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.
Atterbury Goldberger et al.
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Marc S. Nurik, Esq.
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E. Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Gary M. Farmer, Jr.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
43