File 013304

Images

Text

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J.
EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually,
Defendant,
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for
Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary Judgment on the claims of abuse of process and malicious
prosecution set forth in Brad Edwards' Fourth Amended Counterclaim. Each of the grounds asserted in
support of Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment are without merit and must be denied.
In Epstein's Amended Complaint he carries forth the essence of all claims asserted in his original
Complaint. In that pleading Epstein essentially alleges that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive
prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. The
purported "proof' of the allegations against Edwards, as referenced in the Second Amended Complaint
and in Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment, includes Edwards' alleged contacts with the media, his
attempts to obtain discovery from high profile persons with whom Epstein socialized, press reports of
Rothstein's known illegal activities, the use of "ridiculously inflammatory' language and arguments in
court. But as the evidence submitted in opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment reflects,
Epstein filed his claims and continued to pursue claims despite his knowledge that his claims could never
be successful because they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief of suspicion that
Case No.: 502009 CA040800XXXXIVIBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 15
they were true. 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 against Epstein, particularly in the face of
Epstein's stonewalling tactics.
Epstein also knew that he suffered no legally cognizable injury
proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of Edwards. Moreover, Epstein had no
intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid providing
relevant and material discovery that Epstein would need in the course of prosecuting his claims and to
which Edwards was entitled in defending those claims. Epstein knew that his prosecution of his claims
would be barred by the sword-shield doctrine.
Most significantly, the evidence submitted in the
supporting papers would compel a fact finder to determine that Epstein had no basis in law or in fact to
pursue his claims against Edwards and that Epstein was motivated by a single ulterior motive to attempt
to intimidate Edwards and his clients and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for
less than their just and reasonable value. The evidence demonstrates that Epstein did not file these claims
for the purpose of collecting money damages since he knew that he never suffered any damage as a
consequence of any alleged wrongdoing by Edwards but filed the claim to require Edwards to expend
time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass Edwards and impugn his integrity and deter
others with legitimate claims against Epstein from pursuing those claims.
Indeed, the evidence
demonstrates that Epstein continued to pursue his claims by filing the Second Amended Complaint
alleging abuse of process against Edwards even after he had paid significant sums in settlement of the
claims instituted by Mr. Edwards' clients against Mr. Epstein!
The evidence marshalled in support of these assertions is set forth in the previously filed documents in this Court.
Those documents include Exhibit "A" — Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Facts; Exhibit "B" — Edwards' Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment; Exhibit "C" — Edwards' October 19, 2012 Second Renewed Motion for Leave to
Assert Claim for Punitive Damages; Exhibit "D" — Edwards' Notice of Filing of Transcript of Telephone Interview
of Virginia Roberts in Support of Motion for Leave to Amended to Assert Punitive Damages; Exhibit "E" —
Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein dated January 25, 2012; Exhibit "F' — Deposition of Bradley Edwards
dated March 23, 2010; Exhibit "G" - Deposition of Scott Rothstein dated June 14, 2012; Exhibit "H" — Order of
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 3 of 15
The record reflects that on the eve of the hearing of Edwards' Motion for Summary Judgment
directed to the Second Amended Complaint and in light of the compelling evidence of the lack of any
wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Edwards, the sole remaining abuse of process claim was dismissed by
Epstein.
As discussed, infra each of the grounds asserted by Epstein in this Motion for Summary
Judgment must be rejected. The litigation privilege does not serve as a bar to the prosecution of Edwards'
claims against Epstein. Moreover, the evidence submitted by Edwards supports each of the elements of
the claims asserted by Edwards against Epstein which are identified in Epstein's Motion.
Response to Epstein's Statement of Undisputed Facts
The evidence marshalled by Edwards in support of his claims against Epstein which are
referenced in footnote 1 mandates the conclusion that, at a minimum, disputed facts exist with respect to
the elements of each claim addressed by Epstein in his Motion. The facts presented in the various papers
would allow the jury to make a determination that Epstein knew that Brad Edwards properly exercised his
legitimate judgment regarding the need to pursue proper and effective discovery against him to support
the claims which Epstein knew were legitimate. That evidence, referenced herein, further demonstrated
that Epstein filed his claims without probable cause and further that there was a bonafide termination in
favor of Edwards. That evidence further demonstrates that the elements of the claim of abusive process
have been established.
The following additional comments are directed at some of the key purported "undisputed"
material facts asserted by Epstein, especially those referenced in his Memorandum of Law. Also set forth
are key evidentiary matters which undermine Epstein's contentions and which support the proposition
that material issues of fact exist which compel the denial of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Judge Crow dated March 29, 2012; Exhibit "I" — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated October 10, 2013; Exhibit
"J" — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated May 15, 2013.
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXX.MBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 4 of 15
None of the public materials identified by Epstein in his Motion make reference to any
wrongdoing by Brad Edwards. Rather, Epstein seeks to pyramid one impermissible inference upon
another from his citation to these materials to support his otherwise unsubstantiated and non-verifiable
conclusion that he had sufficient evidence to proceed with claims of wrongdoing against Edwards. In
truth, as reflected in Edwards' deposition and his supplemental affidavit, he has no involvement in any
fraud perpetrated by Rothstein (Edwards' deposition of March 23, 2010 at 301-302; Edwards Affidavit
attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "N" at paragraphs 8-10, paragraph 20, paragraphs
22-23; Exhibit "H" — Deposition of Scott Rothstein at pp. 62-63, 114, and 121-124). Therefore, any
allegations relating to Rothstein's activities simply have no bearing on the legitimacy of any of the claims
against Edwards.
Edwards could not have possibly "pumped" cases to investors when he never
participated in any communications with investors. Rather, Edwards had a duty to his clients to zealously
pursue discovery to achieve a maximum recovery against Epstein. Edwards cannot be liable for taking
appropriate action that his ethical duties as an attorney required. The evidence also reflects that Edwards
filed all three of his cases almost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew Scott Rothstein
(Edwards' Affidavit, Exhibit "N" attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts). The language set forth in
his Complaints remain virtually unchanged from the first filing in 2008 and, as the evidence shows, the
claims asserted against Epstein from the outset were true.
The citation to public documents is a
convenient ruse; Epstein was not only liable for the molestation of the clients of Brad Edwards, he was
also a serial molester of minors — even as young as twelve years of age
(Exhibit "A" — Edwards'
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts paragraphs 1-43; Exhibit "D" — Statement of Virginia Roberts pp.
16-17). Epstein entered a plea of guilty to felony charges involving prostitution and the solicitation of a
minor for the purposes of prostitution (Exhibit "E" — Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, March 17, 2010, pp.
101-103). Epstein also entered into an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office
acknowledging that approximately 34 other young girls could receive payments from him under the
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 5 of 15
Federal Statute providing for compensation to victims of child abuse..
(Exhibit "N' — Edwards'
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 41-43).
On July 6, 2010 Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards had filed against
him (Exhibit "N' — Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 84-85). At Epstein's
request, the terms of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to settle all these cases
in therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in camera review. Epstein
chose to make this payment as a result of a Federal Court ordered mediation process which he himself
sought. Epstein entered into the settlements in July 2010 more than seven months after he filed his
lawsuit against Edwards and before he filed his Second Amended Complaint alleging abuse of process on
August 22, 2011.
Further, Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to pump the cases against him
because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA and severed all connection
with Rothstein in December 2009 (Edwards' Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as
Exhibit "N," paragraph 20). Moreover, Epstein could not have suffered any damage as a result of the
perpetration of the Ponzi scheme by Rothstein because he was not an investor in the scheme.
Perhaps the most significant evidence presented in opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary
Judgment is the telephone interview of Virginia Roberts submitted in Support of Edwards' Motion for
Punitive Damages (Exhibit "D"). In addition to the specious claims against Edwards relating to his
alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme, Epstein, in asserting his claims, primarily relied upon the pursuit
by Edwards of testimony from his close friends and associates (See Second Amended Complaint,
paragraph 32, pp. 11-13). Reliance on these assertions is also threaded through Epstein's Motion for
Summary Judgment in his citation to the public documents referencing the pursuit of such discovery. But
as set forth in detail in Edwards' Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Exhibit "B") at pages 14-16, that
discovery was entirely appropriate and Epstein knew it. Specifically, as reflected in the statement of
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 6 of 15
undisputed facts submitted by Mr. Edwards in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Edwards
had a sound legal basis for believing that Donald Trump, Allen Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Tommy
Mattola, David Copperfield and Governor Bill Richardson had relevant and discoverable information
(Exhibit "A" — Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Facts, paragraphs 69-81). That belief was reinforced
by the testimony of Virginia Roberts (Exhibit "D" pp. 10-17, 21-23). Epstein's assertion of impropriety
in the pursuit of this discovery clearly evidences his bad faith attempts to attribute wrongdoing to
Edwards when he knew, in fact, that the pursuit of that discovery was entirely appropriate under the
circumstances of this case.
Finally, any attempt by Epstein to rely upon what he claims are undisputed facts to support his
Motion for Summary Judgment are undermined by his refusal to provide any testimony on the key issues
and evidence which would demonstrate the validity and strength of each of the claims brought against
him by Brad Edwards. Epstein's depositions of March 17, 2010 and January 25, 2012 were replete with
refusals of Epstein to testify based upon his Fifth Amendment privilege. Questions that Epstein refused
to answer in his depositions and the reasonable inferences that a fact finder would draw and which would
otherwise bear on the arguments submitted by Epstein in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment
are as follows:
• Question not answered: "I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence
that Bradley Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were
sold purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement?" Reasonable
inference: No knowledge that Brad Edwards ever participated in the Ponzi scheme.
o
o
Question not answered: "Specifically what are the allegations against you which you
contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?" Reasonable inference: No allegations against Epstein
were ginned up.
Question not answered: "Well, which of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were
fabricated?" Reasonable inference: No cases filed by Edwards against Epstein were
fabricated.
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 7 of 15
• Question not answered: "Did sexual assaults ever take place on a private airplane on
which you were a passenger?" Reasonable inference: Epstein was on a private airplane
while sexual assaults were taking place.
• Question not answered: "How many minors have you procured for prostitution?"
Reasonable inference: Epstein has procured multiple minors for prostitution.
• Question not answered: "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against
you in September of 2008 which you contend to be false?" Reasonable inference:
Nothing in L.M.'s complaint filed in September of 2008 was false — i.e., as alleged in
L.M.'s complaint, Epstein repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a minor and
she was entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages as a result.
• Question not answered: "I would like to know whether you ever had any physical
contact with the person referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?" Reasonable
inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor Jane Doe as alleged in her federal
complaint.
• Question not answered: "Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?"
Reasonable inference: Epstein had physical contact with minor E.W. as alleged in her
complaint.
• Question not answered: "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W.
against you has?" Reasonable inference: E.W.'s claim against Epstein had substantial
actual value.
(See Exhibit "A" — Edwards' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, paragraphs 93-120
for page references.)
A jury could conclude, therefore, from the adverse inferences drawn against Epstein that he was
liable for the claims brought by Brad Edwards and that he had no basis for the pursuit of his efforts to
intimidate and extort Edwards and his clients in the pursuit of those claims.
The Litigation Privilege Does Not Bar the Claims of Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution
Epstein contends he is entitled to absolute immunity pursuant to the litigation privilege as to both
claims asserted by Edwards because all actions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of
process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman,
2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation
privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecution cause of action. Wolfe is still
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 8 of 15
on rehearing and, thus, is not a final opinion. As a result, it is not binding, nor persuasive. Moreover,
Wolfe undercuts the long-standing recognition of the viability of a claim for malicious prosecution in its
own District and other Florida state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839
So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165
(Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues
to exist and would not be barred by the litigation privilege."); Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 835
So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Cope, J., concurring) (litigation privilege would not be a bar to a
malicious prosecution action); North Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig, 611 Fed. Supp. 2d 1324
(M.D. Fla. 2009) ("However, not every event bearing any relation to litigation is protected by the
privileged because,... "if the litigation privilege applied to all actions preliminary to or during judicial
proceedings, an abuse of process claim would never exist, nor would a claim for malicious prosecution");
Cruz v. Angelides, 574 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)("the law is well settled that a witness in a judicial
proceeding,... is absolutely immune from any civil liability, save perhaps malicious prosecution, for
testimony or other sworn statements which he or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding.");
Johnson v. Libow, 2012 WL 4068409 (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. March 1, 2012)(the purpose of the litigation
privilege does not preclude the tort of malicious prosecution).
In Wright v. Yurko supra, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the application of the
litigation privilege to a malicious prosecution action brought by a physician against his patients and an
expert after he successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District's
opinion in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the
litigation (or judicial) privilege would not apply to bar a malicious prosecution action which arose as a
result of a false accusation of criminal liability where the prosecution was based, in part, on the testimony
of the defendants in the criminal case.
The court ruled that the privilege (either absolute or qualified)
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 9 of 15
which might otherwise apply to a defamation claim for statements made during the course of a judicial
proceeding did not bar a malicious prosecution claim.
In light of the implicit recognition by the Supreme Court in Levin that a claim of malicious
prosecution is not barred by the litigation privilege — an implicit recognition acknowledged by the Third
District itself — Epstein's reliance on Wolfe is misplaced. Wolfe is also factually distinguishable from
Edwards' claims against Epstein.
Wolfe involved a malicious prosecution action against attorneys.
Separate policy considerations might serve to impose additional limitations on the assertion of malicious
prosecution claims against attorneys — against whom alternative remedies exist such as bar disciplinary
proceedings. See Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.2d 642 (Idaho 2010). Moreover, in light of the decisions in
Wright v. Yurko, supra and Olson v. Johnson, supra, the weight of authority supports the proposition that
the litigation privilege would not apply to malicious prosecution claims.
Both the Third and Fourth Districts have applied the litigation privilege to abuse of process
claims. However, Wolfe itself, and the decisions of the Third and Fourth Districts cited in Wolfe,
involved the litigation privilege as applied to claims of abuse of process by attorneys. None of the cases
involved the extraordinary actions of an individual party like Epstein who carried out a course of action
against Plaintiffs counsel with a singular purpose unrelated to any legitimate judicial goal. Under the
compelling facts of this case, where the actions of Epstein are coupled with the elements of malice and
absence of probable cause arising from the unfounded filing of the claims against Edwards, the litigation
privilege should not have any applicability to the abuse of process claim asserted by Edwards.
There are Disputed Issues of Fact Precluding Summary Judgment on the Abuse of Process Claim
An abuse of process claim requires pleading and proof of the following three elements: 1) that the
defendant made an illegal, improper or perverted use of process; 2) that the defendant had ulterior
motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and 3) that, as a
result of such action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damage." See S&I Invs. v. Payless
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 10 of 15
Flea Mkt., 36 So. 3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(citation omitted). The case law is clear that on an
abuse of process claim a "plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other
than that for which it was designed." Id. (citation omitted). Where the actions taken by a party in a
particular lawsuit are designed to coerce another into taking some collateral action not properly involved
in the proceeding a claim of abuse of process is stated. Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ferre,
8636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985).
In a case for abuse of process, the question of whether the plaintiff's case satisfies the requisite
elements is largely a question for a jury. See Patrick John McGinley, 21 Fla. Prac., Elements of an Action
§ 50:1 (2013-2014 ed.)(citing Gatto v. Publix Supermarket, 111C. 387 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).
The usual case of abuse of process involves some form of extortion. Scozari v. Barone, 546 So.
2d 750, 751(Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA
1984)). That is exactly what has transpired here. Epstein employed the extraordinary financial resources at
his disposal to intimidate his molestation victims and Edwards into abandoning their legitimate claims or
resolving those claims for substantially less than their just and reasonable value. Consequently, since
Epstein's sole purpose and ulterior motive for filing the complaint without probable cause was in an effort
to extort, to wit: to force his molestation victims and Edwards to settle for minimal amounts, that filing
and everything subsequently done to pursue the claims constitutes an abuse of process. See Exhs. A at 18-
27, C at 4-7. Because Edwards has conclusively demonstrated that Epstein's actions in pursuing his
claims were designed to coerce Edwards (and his client) to take some collateral action not properly
involved in the proceedings and did so with an ulterior purpose, summary judgment directed at the abuse
of process claim must fail. The damages suffered by Edwards include: (a) injury to his reputation; (b)
mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; (c) fear physical injury to himself and members of his
family; (d) the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibility;
and (e) the cost of defending against Epstein's spurious and baseless claims. All the elements of the
Case No.: 5 02009 CA040 8 00XXXXMB AG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 11 of 15
claim for abuse of process have been satisfied. This case, then, falls within the parameters of the Third
District's Decision in Scozari v. Barone, supra in which the court reversed the entry of summary
judgment for the defendant on claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. With respect to the
abuse of process claim, the court stated that "if there was no reasonable basis in law and fact to bring the
action to impress a lien on property, and this was done without any reasonable justification under law and
to force or compel the appellant to resolve some custody dispute, induce the appellant to pay money, or
tie up the appellant's property, then there has been an abuse of process." Id at 752.
There are Disputed Issues of Fact Precluding Summary Judgment on the Claim of
Malicious Prosecution
Here, Epstein's voluntary dismissal of his abuse of process claims against Edwards amounted to a
bona fide termination of the proceedings. He knew his allegations were unsupported by evidence (See
discussion above at pages 3-6). Knowing he lacked any verifiable evidence against Edwards, on the eve
of the summary judgment hearing, Epstein effectively conceded that fact by voluntarily dismissing his
claims. Hence, it is evident that Epstein took voluntary dismissal of his claims because he knew he did
not have probable cause or an evidentiary basis to support the allegations. See Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So.
2d 1153 at 1156 (citing Union Oil of California, Amsco Division v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 at 354
(stating that "where a dismissal is taken because of insufficiency of the evidence, the requirement of a
favorable termination is met")). Accordingly, the manner of termination reflects on the merits of the case
and there was a bona fide termination of Epstein's civil proceeding against Edwards (See Judge Crow's
Order of March 29, 2012 denying Motion to Dismiss re: Issue of Bonafide Termination attached as
Exhibit "fn.
Epstein's only other issue with Edwards' counterclaim for malicious prosecution is that he did not
lack probable cause in pursing his claims against Edwards. As established by the record, Epstein did, in
fact, lack probable cause to assert his claims against Edwards (See discussion above). Epstein's purported
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 12 of 15
reliance on public filings, including the Scherer Complaint against Rothstein is unavailing. As discussed
above, the evidence warrants the finding that Epstein knew that Edwards was legitimately pursuing the
claims on behalf of his clients which included the effort to secure testimony from Epstein's close
confidants. Therefore, Epstein cannot rely upon the referenced public documents to support his claims
against Edwards given that he knows that information to be untrue and he refuses to answer questions
about the veracity of the information. See Exh. G at pgs. 53:6-24; 78:16-24; 87:20-88:14. Consequently,
Epstein had no good faith basis to rely on such information.
Epstein's Assertion of his Fifth Amendment Privilege Gives Rise to Adverse Inferences
Pertinent to His Motion for Summary Judgment and Precludes His Reliance on Purported
Undisputed Facts
As discussed above, Epstein's multiple invocations of his Fifth Amendment Privilege results in
adverse inferences which directly impact the issues advanced in his Motion for Summary Judgment. "It
is well settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions
when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v.
Palinigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); Accord, Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. at 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 INV. Corp, 615 So. 2d. 841, 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The adverse inferences
drawn from Epstein's assertion of the Fifth Amendment undercut his claim of justifiable reliance based
upon the purported undisputed material facts to support his Motion for Summary Judgment.
Moreover, because Epstein elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self-incrimination
to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at the center of his claims,
he was effectively barred from prosecuting his abuse of process claim against Edwards. Similarly, Epstein
should be barred from utilizing the Fifth Amendment privilege to secure summary judgment based upon
assertions of fundamental facts when Epstein refused to testify on essential issues pertinent to the
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 13 of 15
arguments advanced in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Under the well-established "sword
and shield" doctrine, Epstein could not seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a
Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. See Exhs. B at 14-21, C at 18-25, G at 53:6-24;
78:16-24; 87:20-88:14. The same policies which underlie the sword and shield doctrine as applied to the
recovery of affirmative relief should also apply to attempts to advance positions with respect to a Motion
for Summary Judgment which would have the effect of securing relief against certain claims.
"[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit." Boys
& Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. JA., 22 So. 3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)(Griffin, J.,
concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative relief in a civil action and then invoke the
fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a 'sword and a shield.'"
DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance
Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Put another way, "[a] civil litigant's fifth amendment right to
avoid self-incrimination may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking
affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the
defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick Hunter of
New York, Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).. For the same reasons,
Epstein should be precluded from advancing arguments based on purported statements of undisputed fact
which cannot be effectively challenged in light of his assertion of the Fifth Amendment.
Epstein has
done precisely what well-established law prohibits.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards respectfully
submits that Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied.
Case No.: 502009CA040800)000CMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 14 of 15
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all
Counsel on the attached list, this / —7 day ofG7(>-,- , 2014.
WILLIAM B. KING
Florida Bar No.: 181773
Attorney E-Mail: wbk@searcylaw.com and
kar@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: eservice@searcylaw.com
Secondary E-Mail: _ScarolaTeam@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9456
Attorney for Bradley J. Edwards
Case No.: 502009CA040800)000(MBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 15 of 15
COUNSEL LIST
William Chester Brewer, Esquire
wcblaw@aol.com; wcbcg@aol.com
250 S Australian Avenue, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-655-4777
Fax: (561)-835-8691
Attorneys for Jeffiey Epstein
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
jgoldberger@agwpa.com;
smahoney@agwpa.com
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-659-8300
Fax: (561)-835-8691
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com
Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos &
Lehrman, FL
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
marc@nuriklaw.com
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik
One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-745-5849
Fax: (954)-745-3556
Attorneys for Scott Rothstein
Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire
tonja@tonjahaddad.com;
Debbie@Tonjahaddad.com;
efiling@tonjahaddad.com
Tonja Haddad, P.A.
315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-467-1223
Fax: (954)-337-3716
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
Fred Haddad, Esquire
Dee@FredHaddadLaw.com;
haddadfm@aol.com; fred@fredhaddadlaw.com
Fred Haddad, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 2612
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954)-467-6767
Fax: (954)-467-3599
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein
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,
vs.
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).
I 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. "Mt is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to
EXHIBIT
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 18r 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 till) 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. Palmigiano, 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 Inv. 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 It4, date
(hereinafter "Jane Doe ftl 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 clit, several
times.").
3. At all relevant times Edwards has had a good faith basis to conclude and did
conclude' 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 #1, #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 Lefkowitz,
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 confirm
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 #1 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
perform 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 "F'); 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 perfoini 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 /Pl.
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 Villafafia to Lefkowitz (attached hereto as Exhibit "I-F), 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 depaitment 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 Depai inent
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 "r).
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 Depai talent 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 information 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 Villafacia 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.
12
As a result of those
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 coconspirators
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 "Nhis 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 former 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
N").
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 Villafafia to infoun her that he
represented Jane Doe #1 and, later, Jane Doe #2. AUSA Villafatia did not advise that a plea
agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would block federal
prosecution. To the contrary, AUSA Villafana mentioned a possible indictment. AUSA
Villafafia did indicate that federal investigators had concrete evidence and information 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 information that they
had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S. Attorney's
Office, declined to provide any such information 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 Villafafia 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 Villafafia 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 "S") (in redacted fowl 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 $7. 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 Jeffiey.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 itd v. Epstein (Exhibit "W") (filed by Herman and Meimelstein, 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 Mermelstein, 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 bom 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 44z1WyLUFH7R1OUtKYGPbP;j se s si oni d=6CA3
EB FlBEF 68F5DE14BFB2 GAAS C37E0. 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 fiiui
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 `1\T", at 11111-19 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 selfincrimination.
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 information 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, Jeffiey Heiman, was disbarred
after filing this lawsuit [a statement that was untrue], Mr. Edwards' pai tier 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.
A11
depositions of Epstein in which Mr. Edwards participated on behalf of his clients are attached to
this motion. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at Il 1 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 information 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 selfincrimination
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 coconspirators
during the civil cases against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit `1\1" 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
hap://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 information, Edwards served Maxwell for
deposition in 2009. See Deposition Notice attached as Exhibit "BB." Maxwell was represented
by Brett Jaffe of the New York film 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 terms 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 "Y' 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 lst 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
"FF."
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 "T' supra
and Sworn Statement of MC2 employee Maritza Vasquez, June 15, 2010, "Maritza Vasquez
Sworn Statement" attached at Exhibit "RH" 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 infoimation 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
http://vvww.palmbeachpost.cominews/crime/victims-seeking-sex-offenders-millions-see-painfulpasts-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"
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 infoimation 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 (Jeffii ey 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 information, 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
"MVP; 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 T16.
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
infoimation about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or fiiends 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 Hinz
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 investigate" 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 investigate' 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 investigate' 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 "I\T” 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 kilns 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 'IT' 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 funi of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A.
("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 infoinied 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 firm. 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 deteamined that Edwards
was "a victim (or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter infolined
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
"TT."
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 18T 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 formerly 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.
Jack Scarola
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
(561) 686- $0
(561 (fax)
By:
JAC AROLA
Flo ar No.: 169440
42
SERVICE LIST
Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
Joseph L. Ackerman, 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
DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Epstein v. Edwards, et al.
Case No.: 50 2009 CA 040800200UMBAG
HII
AFFIDAVIT OF RADLEY JAMES EDWARDS
1. I am an attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar and admitted to practice in the
Southern District of Florida. I am currently a partner in the law firm of Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
2. In 2008, I was a sole practitioner running a perso injury law l„ in Hollywood, FL.
While a sole practitioner I was retained by three clients, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe to
pursue civil litigation against Je ey Epstein for sexually abusing them while ey were
inor girls. I agreed to represent these girls, along wi y. attorney Jay Howell (an
attorney in Jacksonville, Florida with Jay Howell & Associates) and Professor Paul
Cassell (a law professor at the University of Utah College Of Law). I filed s e court
actions on behalf of L.M. and E.W. and a federal court action on behalf of Jane Doe.
All of the cases were filed in the summer of 2008.
3. My clients received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding
their rights as victims of Epstein's federal sex offenses. (True and accurate copies of
the letters are attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit "M")
4. mid June 2008, I contacted Assistant United States Attorney Marie Villafafia to
inform her I represented Jane Doe #1(E.W.) and, later, Jane Doe #2(L.M.). I asked
to meet to provide information regarding Epstein. AUSA Villafafia did not advise me
that a plea agreement had already been negotiated with Epstein's attorneys that would
block federal prosecution. AUSA Villafafia 'd indicate that federal inve 'gators h
concrete evidence and information that Epstein had sexually molested at least 40
underage rainor females, including EN., Jule Doe and L.M.
5. I also requested from the U.S. Attorney's Office the information and evidence that they
had collected regarding Epstein's sexual abuse of his clients. However, the U.S.
Attorney's Office declined to provide any such information to me. The U.S. Attorney's
Office also declined to provide any such information to the other attorneys who
represented victims of Epstein's sexusl assaults.
6. I was informed that on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15 p.m., AUSA
Villafafia 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. She called me to provide
notice to my clients regarding the hearing. She did not tell me that the guilty pleas in
state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the
plea agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008,
when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the
Crime Victims' Rights Act action that I had filed.
7. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffwy Epstein on behalf of L.M.,
E.W., and Jane Doe.
8. In the Spring of 2009 (approximately April), I joined the law farm of Rothstein,
Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). I brought my existing clients with me when I
joined RRA, including L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. When I joined the firm, I was not
aware that Scott Rothstein was running a Ponzi scheme at RRA. Had I known such a
Ponzi scheme was in place, I would never have joined RRA.
9. I am now aware that it has been alleged that Scott othstein made fraudulent
presentations to investors about the lawsuits that I had filed on be of my clients
against Epstein and that it has been alleged that these lawsuits were used to fraudulently
lure investors into Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. I never met a single investor, h: no part
in any such presentations and had no knowledge any such fraud was occurring. If these
allegations are true, I had no knowledge any such fraudulent presentations were
occurring and no kn wledge of any such improper use of the case files.
10. Epstein's Complaint against me alleges that Rothstein made false statements about
cases filed against Epstein, i.e., that RRA 50 anonymous females who had filed suit
against Epstein; that Rothstein sold an interest in personal injury lawsuits, reached
agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers, paid clients ``tip front" money; and
that he used the judici process to further his Ponzi scheme. If Rothstein did any of
these things, I h no knowledge of his actions. Because I maintained close contact
with my clients, EW, LM and Jane Doe, and Scott Rothstein never met any of them, I
know for certain that none of my clients were paid ''up front" money by anyone.
11. Epstein alleges that I attempted to take the depositions of his "high profile friends and
accpnkintances" for no legitimate litigation purpose. This is untrue, as all of my actions
in representing L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe were aimed at providing them effective
representation in their civil suits. With regard to Epstein's friends, through documents
and information obtained in discovery and other means of investigation, I learned that
Epstein was sexually itolesting 'nor girls on a daily basis and h been for many
years. I also learned the unsurprising fact that he was molesting the girls in the privacy
of his mansion in West Palm Beach, meaning that locating witnesses to corroborate
their testimony would be difficult to find. I also learned, from the course of the
litigation, that Epstein and his lawyers were constantly attacking the credibility of the
girls, that Epstein's employees were all represented by lawyers who apparently were
paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein, that co-conspirators whose represen :.tion
was also apparently paid for by Epstein were all taking the Fifth (like Epstein) rather
than provide information in discovery. For example, I was given reason to believe that
Sarah Kellen, Larry Visoski, Larry Harrison, David Rogers, Louella Rabuyo, Nadia
Marcinkova, Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers
paid for by Epstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation
criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery avenues, I needed to search for other
ordinary approaches to strengthen the cases of my clients. Consistent with my training
and experience, these other ordinary approaches included finding other witnesses who
could corroborate allegations of sexual abuse of my clients or other girls. Some of these
witnesses were friends of Epstein. Given his social status, it also turned out that some
of his friends were high-profile. individuals.
12. In light of information I received suggesting that British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell,
former girlfriend and long-time friend of Epstein's, was involved in managing Epstein's
affairs and companies I had her served for deposition for August 17, 2009. (Deposition
Notice attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit B). Maxwell was
represented by Brett Jaffe of the New York firm of Cohen and Gresser, and I
understood that her attorney was paid for (directly or indirectly) by Epstein. She was
reluctant to give her deposition, and I tried to work with her attorney to take her
deposition on terms that would be acceptable to both sides. er attorney and I
negotiated a confidentiality agreement, under which Maxwell agreed to drop any
objections to the deposition. Maxwell, however, still avoided the deposition. On June
29, 2010, one y before I was to fly to NY to take Maxwell's deposition, her attorney
informed me that Maxwell's mother was deathly ill and Maxwell was consequently
flying to England with no inteh tion of returning and certainly would not return to the
United S tes before the conclusion of Jane Doe's trial period (August 6, 2010).
Despite that assertion, I later learned that Ghislaine Maxwell was in fact in the country
on approximately July 31, 2010, as she attended s e wedding of Chelsea Clinton
(former President Clinton's daughter) and was captured in a photograph taken for US
Weekly 'magazine.
13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Donald Trump's deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was
properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from
Epstein's home, the legal and investigative team assisting my clients learned that Trump
called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period
most relevant to my 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 fu a to be with. It is eve said that he likes beau I wo en as much as I do, and
a y of then are on the you ger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social
life." Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of
Nobel Prize—wi ning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite
Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't until he flew Clinton,
Kevin Spacey, awed Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the world
began to wonder who he is. By Lando Thomas Jr.; (c) I learned through a source
that Trump banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Pahn 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 (Jefftzy 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) deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009 at 48-50; (f) Trump
visited Epstein at his home in Palm Beach — the same home where Epstein abused
minor girls daily; (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, I believed that
Trump might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein
and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
14. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Alan Dershowi's deposition in the civil suits against him. IDershowitz
was properly noticed because: (a) Dershowitz has been friends with Epstein for many
years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments t, "I'm on my 20th book... The
only person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The
Talented Mr. Epstein, By Vicky Ward on J uary, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity
Fair; (c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at
Epstein's house during the years most relev t to my clients; (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 was reportedly involved in persuading the Palm Beach State
Attorney's office ot to file felony criminal charges against Epstein because
underage females lacked credibility and thus could not be believed that they were at
Epstein's house, despite him being an eyewitness that the underage girls were actually
there; (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, includhag 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 Harvard $30 Million dollars one year, and Harvard was one of the only
institutions that did not return Epstein's donation after he was charged with sex offenses
against children. Based on this information, I believed that Dershowitz might have
relevant information to provide in e cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly
provided notice of a possible deposition.
15. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I
intended to take Bill Clinton's deposition. Clinton was properly noticed because: (a) it
was well known that Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, and several witnesses
had provided information that Maxwell 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) newpaper articles stated that Clinton had an affair
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was thought to be second in charge of Epstein's child
molestation ring. The Cleveland Leader newspaper, April 10, 2009; (c) it was national
news when Clinton traveled with Epstein (and Maxwell) aboard Epstein's private plane
to Africa and the news articles classified Clinton as Epstein's friend; (d) the flight logs
for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on more
than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions; (e)
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,
politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal
acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into; (f) flight
logs showed that Clinton took many flights with Epstein, 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; (g) 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; (h) 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. Based on this information, 1 believed that Clinton might
have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and
accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.
16. Epstein alleges that Tommy Mottola was improperly noticed with a deposition. 1 did
not notice Mattola for deposition. He was noticed for deposition by a law firm
representing another one of Epstein's victims — not by me.
17. Epstein alleges that ere was something improper in the fact that 1 notified him
intended to take the illusionist David Copperfield's deposition. Copperfield was
properly noticed because: (a) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that
David Copperfield was a guest on several occasions Epstein's house; (b) according to
the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house, Copperfield called Epstein quite
frequently and left messages that indicated they socialized together; (c) Copperfield
himself has had similar allegations made against him by women claiming he sexually
abused them; (d) 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. eased on
this information, believed that Copperfield might have relevant information to provide
in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible
deposition.
18. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that 1 identified Bill
Richardson as a possible witness against him in the civil cases. Richardson was
properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to
Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. See deposition of Larry
Morrison, October 6, 2009, at 167-169. 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 since he had regularly and
frequently abused girls in West Palm Beach and elsewhere. Richardson had also
returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, in 'eating that he
believed that there was something about Epstein that he did not want to be associated
with. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify.
19. Epstein alleges that discovery of plane and pilot logs was improper during discovery in
the civil cases against him. Discovery of these subjects was clearly proper and
necessary because: (a) 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 my 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; (b) Jane Doe also filed and was proceeding to trial on a federal claim
under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute which (unlike other state
statutes) guaranteed a minimum level of recovery for Jane Doe. 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 the telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, seco d, his vel on planes
in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, I 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 I representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence
to res nd 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. (c) 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 he used his plane to transport underage females
to be sexually abused by him and his friends. The flight logs accordingly rnight have
information about either additional girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or 'ends
of Epstein who may have witnessed or even participated in the abuse. Based on this
information, I believed that the flight logs and related information was relevant
informatio to prove e cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly I pursued them
in discovery.
20. In approximately November 2009, the existence of Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme
became public knowledge. It was at that time that I, o,i, g with many other reputable
attorneys at RRA, first became aware of Rothstein criminal scheme. At that time, I left
RRA with several other RRA attorneys to form the law firm of Farmer Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos and Lehrman ("Farmer Jaffe"). I was thus with RRA for less than one
year.
21. In July 2010, along with other attorneys at Farmer Jaffe and Professor Cassell, I reached
favorable settlement terms for my three clients L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe in their
lawsuits against Epstein.
22. On July 20, 2010, I 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 I was "a victim
(or potential victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed me of my
rights as a victim of Rothstein's federal crimes and promised to keep me informed about
/01
subsequent developments in his prosecution. A copy of this letter is attached to this
Affidavit. (A copy of the letter is attached to Statement of Undisputed Facts as Exhibit
UU)
23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint
alleged that I had been involved in Rothstein's scheme and had thereby violated various
rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the
complaint.
24. I have reviewed the Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contem raneously with this
Affidavit. Each of the assertions concerning what I learned, what I did, and the good
faith beliefs formed by me in the course of my prosecutions of claims against Jeffrty
Epstein as contained in the Statement of Undisputed Facts is true, and the foundations
set out as support for my beliefs are true and correct to e best of my knowledge.
25. All actions taken by me in the course of my prosecution of claims against Jeffrey
Epstein were based upon a good faith belief that they were reasonable, necessary, and
ethically proper to fulfill my obligation to zealously represent the interests of my
clie ts.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:
.24
2010
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No.: 50 2009CA 040800)0OCKMBAG
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,
Defendants,
DEFENDANT BRADLEY J. EDWARDS'S
RENEWED MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., by and through his undersigned counsel and
pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for Final Summary
Judgment and in support thereof states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
The pleadings and discovery taken to date show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material facts and that Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. is entitled to summary judgment for all claims
brought against him in Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein's Second Amended Complaint. Not only is there
an absence of competent evidence to demonstrate that Edwards participated in any fraud against
Epstein, the evidence uncontrovertibly demonstrates the propriety of every aspect of Edwards'
involvement in the prosecution of legitimate claims against Epstein. Epstein sexually abused
three clients of Edwards — L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe — and Edwards properly and successfully
represented them in a civil action against Epstein. Nothing in Edwards's capable and competent
representation of his clients can serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit against him. Allegations
about Edwards's participation in or knowledge of the use of the civil actions against Epstein in a
"Ponzi Scheme" are not supported by any competent evidence and could never be supported by
competent evidence as they are entirely false.
A. Epstein's Complaint
Epstein's Second Amended Complaint essentially alleges that Epstein was damaged by
Edwards, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law
fiiiii ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein appears to allege that
Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to
"pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor victims were
told by Rothstein that three minor girls who were sexually assaulted by Epstein: L.M., E.W., and
Jane Doe were to be paid up-front money to prevent those girls from settling their civil cases
against Epstein. In Epstein's view, these child sexual assault cases had "minimal value"
(Complaint & 42(h)), and Edwards's refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement
offers is claimed to breach some duty that Edwards owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never
states that he actually made any settlement offers.
The supposed "proof' of the Complaint's allegations against Edwards includes
Edwards's alleged contacts with the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile
persons with whom Epstein socialized, and use of "ridiculously inflammatory" language in
arguments in court. Remarkably, Epstein has filed such allegations against Edwards despite the
fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of Edwards's clients and others while they were
2
minors. Indeed, in discovery Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than
answer questions about the extent of the sexual abuse of his many victims. Even more
remarkably, since filing his suit against Edwards, Epstein has now settled the three cases
Edwards handled for an amount that Epstein insisted be kept confidential. Without violating the
strict confidentiality terms required by Epstein, the cases did not settle for the "minimal value"
that Epstein suggested in his Complaint. Because Epstein relies upon the alleged discrepancy
between the "minimal value Epstein ascribed to the claims and the substantial value Edwards
sought to recover for his clients, the settlement amounts Epstein voluntarily agreed to pay while
these claims against Edwards were pending will be disclosed to the court in-camera.
B. Summary of the Argument
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., is entitled to summary judgment on Epstein's frivolous claim
for at least three separate reasons.
First, because Epstein has elected to hide behind the shield of his right against self
incrimination to preclude his disclosing any relevant information about the criminal activity at
the center of his claims, he is barred from prosecuting this case against Edwards. Under the
well-established "sword and shield" doctrine, Epstein cannot seek damages from Edwards while
at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. His case
must therefore be dismissed.
Second, all of Edwards' conduct in the prosecution of valid claims against Epstein is
protected by the litigation privilege.
Third, and most fundamentally, Epstein's lawsuit should be dismissed because it is not
only unsupported by but is also directly contradicted by all of the record evidence. From the
3
beginning, Edwards diligently represented three victims of sexual assaults perpetrated by
Epstein. As explained in detail below, each and every one of Edwards's litigation decisions was
grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery against
Epstein, particularly in the face of Epstein's stonewalling tactics.
Edwards's successful
representation finally forced Epstein to settle and pay appropriate damages. Effective and proper
representation of child victims who have been repeatedly sexually assaulted cannot form the
basis of a separate, !`satellite" lawsuit, and therefore Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on
these grounds as well.
The truth is the record is entirely devoid of any evidence to support Epstein's claims and
is completely and consistently corroborative of Edwards's sworn assertion of innocence. Put
simply, Epstein has.made allegations that have no basis in fact. To the contrary, his lawsuit was
merely a desperate measure by a serial pedophile to prevent being held accountable for
repeatedly sexually abusing minor females. Epstein's ulterior motives in filing and prosecuting
this lawsuit are blatantly obvious. Epstein's behavior is another clear demonstration that he feels
he lives above the law and that because of his wealth he can manipulate the system and pay for
lawyers to do his dirty work - even to the extent of having them assert baseless claims against
other members of the Florida Bar. Epstein's Second Amended Complaint against Edwards is
nothing short of a far-fetched fictional fairy-tale with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to
support his preposterous claims. It was his last ditch effort to escape the public disclosure by
Edwards and his clients of the nature, extent, and sordid details of his life as a serial child
molester. Edwards's Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted without equivocation.
4
ARGUMENT
II. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S
CLAIM BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS AND THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS ESTABLISH THAT EDWARDS'S CONDUCT COULD
NOT POSSIBLY FORM THE BASIS OF ANY LIABILITY IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN
A. The Summary Judgment Standard.
Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a court may enter summary
judgment when the.pleadings, depositions and factual showings reveal that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See
Snyder v. Cheezem Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Rule 1.510(c),
Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party conclusively establishes that the nonmoving party cannot
prevail, it is incumbent on the nonmoving party to submit evidence to rebut the motion for
summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1966). It is not enough for the
opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. 11Tynns, 667 So.2d 761,
764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same).
Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary
judgment motion supported by appropriate proof may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions
found in the pleadings to create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party
must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v.
Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985);
see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 141 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d Dist Ct. App. 1962)
(recognizing that mere contrary allegations of complaint were not sufficient to preclude summary
judgment on basis of facts established without dispute). Where the nonmoving party fails to
5
present evidence rebutting the motion for summary judgment and there is no genuine issue of
material fact, then entry of judgment is proper as a matter of law. See Davis v. Hathaway, 408
So. 2d 688, 689 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1982); see also Holl, 191 So. 2d at 43.
B. Epstein's Claim Regarding Edwards Have Absolutely No Factual Basis.
This is not a complicated case for granting summary judgment. To the contrary, this is a
simple case for summary judgment because each and every one of Epstein's claim against
Edwards lacks any merit whatsoever.'
1. Epstein's allegations regarding Edwards' involvement in Rothstein's "Ponzi
Scheme" are unsupported and unsupportable because he was simply not
involved in any such scheme.
a. Edwards Had No Involvement in the Ponzi Scheme.
The bulk of Epstein's claims against Edwards hinge on the premise that Edwards was
involved in a Ponzi •scheme run by Scott Rothstein. Broad allegations of wrongdoing on the part
of Edwards are scattered willy-nilly throughout the complaint. None of the allegations provide
any substance as to how Edwards actually assisted the Ponzi scheme, and allegations that he
"knew or should have known" of its existence are based upon an impermissible pyramiding of
inferences. In any event, these allegations all fail for one straightforward reason: Edwards was
simply not involved in any Ponzi scheme. He has provided sworn testimony and an affidavit in
support of that assertion, and there is not (and could never be) any contrary evidence.
Edwards has now been deposed at length in this case. As his deposition makes crystal
clear, he had no knowledge of any fraudulent activity in which Scott Rothstein may have been
I A decision by the Court to grant summary judgment on Epstein's claims against Edwards would not affect
Epstein's claims against Scott Rothstein. Epstein has already chosen to dismiss all of his claims against L.M., the
only other defendant named in the suit.
6
involved. See, e.g., Edwards Depo. at 301-02 (Q: " . . . [W]ere you aware that Scott Rothstein
was trying to market Epstein cases . . . ?" A: "No.").
Edwards has supplemented his deposition answers with an Affidavit that declares in no
uncertain terms his lack of involvement in any fraud perpetrated by Rothstein.
See, e.g.,
Edwards Affidavit attached to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as Exhibit '1\1' at ¶8-10,
¶20, ¶22-23. Indeed, no reasonable juror could find that Edwards was involved in the scheme, as
Edwards joined RRA well after Rothstein began his fraud and would have been already deeply in
debt. In fact, the evidence of Epstein's crimes is now clear, and Edwards's actions in this case
were entirely in keeping with his obligation to provide the highest possible quality of legal
representation for his clients to obtain the best result possible.
In view of this clear evidence rebutting all allegations against him, Epstein must now
"produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact." See Bryant v. Shands
Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985). Epstein
cannot do this. Indeed, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence of Edwards's
involvement, Epstein declined to answer, purportedly on attorney-client privilege grounds:
Q. I want to know whether you have any knowledge of evidence that Bradley
Edwards personally ever participated in devising a plan through which were sold
purported confidential assignments of a structured payout settlement? . . .
A. I'd like to answer that question by saying that the newspapers have reported
that his firm was engaged in fraudulent structured settlements in order to fleece
unsuspecting Florida investors. With respect to my personal knowledge, I'm
unfortunately going to, today, but I look forward to at some point being able to
disclose it, today I'm going to have to assert the attorney/client privilege.
See Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, Mar. 17, 2010 (hereinafter "Epstein Depo.") at 67-68.
Therefore summary judgment should be granted for Edwards on all claims involving any Ponzi
scheme by Rothstein.
7
b. Epstein's Allegations of Negligence by Edwards are Unfounded and Not
Actionable in Any Event.
In his Second Amended Complaint Epstein recognizes at least the possibility that
Edwards was not involved in any Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Therefore, seemingly as a fallback,
Epstein alleges without explanation that Edwards "should have known" about the existence of
this concealed Ponzi scheme. Among other problems, this fallback negligence position suffers
the fatal flaw that it does not link at all to the intentional tort of abuse of process alleged in the
complaint.
Epstein's negligence claim is also deficient because it simply fails to satisfy the
requirements for a negligence cause of action:
"Four elements are necessary to sustain a negligence claim: 1. A duty, or
obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a
certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable
risks. 2. A failure on the [defendant's] part to conform to the standard required: a
breach of the duty . . . 3. A reasonably close causal connection between he
conduct and the resulting injury. This is what is commonly known as 'legal
cause,' or 'proximate cause,' and which includes the notion of cause in fact. 4.
Actual loss or damage.
Curd v. MOsaic Fertilizer, LLC, S o.2d , 2010 WL 2400384 at *9 (Fla. 2010). Epstein
does not allege a particular duty on the part of Edwards that has been breached. Nor does
Epstein explain how any breach of the duty might have proximately caused him actual damages.
Summary judgment is therefore appropriate for these reasons as well.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is worth noting briefly that no reasonable jury
could find Edwards to have been negligent in failing to anticipate that a managing pal tner at his
law firm would be involved in an unprecedented Ponzi scheme. Scott Rothstein deceived not
8
only Edwards but also more than 60 other reputable lawyers at a major law firm. Cf . Sun
Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Dec. 11, 2009, 2009 WLNR 25074193 at *1 ("Sure, some outlandish
John Grisham murder plot[s] sound far-fetched. But if you asked me a few months ago if Scott
Rothstein was fabricating federal court orders and forging a judge's signature on documents to
allegedly fleece his friends, as federal prosecutors allege, I would have said that was far-fetched,
too."). No reasonable lawyer could have expected that a fellow member of the bar would have
been involved in such a plot. Nobody seemed to know of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, not even his
best friends, or the people he did business with on a daily basis, or even his wife. Many of the
attorneys at RRA had been there for years and knew nothing. Edwards was a lawyer at RRA for
less than 8 months and had very few personal encounters with Rothstein during his time at the
firm, yet Epstein claims that he should have known of Rothstein's intricate Ponzi scheme. No
doubt for this reason the U.S. Attorney's Office has now listed Edwards as a "victim" of
Rothstein's crimes. See Statement of Undisputed Facts filed contemporaneously.
Epstein's Complaint does not offer any specific reason why a jury would conclude that
Edwards was negligent, and he chose not to offer any explanation of his claim at his deposition.
Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment to the extent the claim against him is
somehow dependent upon his negligence in failing to discover Rothstein's Ponzi scheme.
2. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent the Claim Against
Him is Dependent on Allegations Regarding "Pumping the Cases" Because
He Was Properly Pursuing the Interests of His Three Clients Who Had Been
Sexually Abused by Epstein.
Epstein alleges that Edwards somehow improperly enhanced the value of the three civil
cases he had filed against Epstein. Edwards represented three young women — L.M., E.W., and
Jane Doe — by filing civil suits against Epstein for his sexual abuse of them while they were
9
minors. Epstein purports to find a cause of action for this by alleging that Edwards somehow
was involved in "'pumping' these three cases to investors."
As just explained, to the extent that Epstein is alleging that Edwards somehow did
something related to the Ponzi scheme, those allegations fail for the simple reason that Edwards
was not involved in any such scheme. Edwards, for example, could not have possibly "pumped"
the cases to investors when he never participated in any communication with investors.
Epstein's "pumping" claims, however, fail for an even more basic reason: Edwards was
entitled — indeed ethically obligated as an attorney — to secure the maximum recovery for his
clients during the course of his legal representation. As is well known, lals an advocate, a
lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system." Fla. Rules
of Prof. Conduct, Preamble.
Edwards therefore was required to pursue (unless otherwise
instructed by his clients) a maximum recovery against Epstein. Edwards, therefore, cannot be
liable for doing something that his ethical duties as an attorney required.2
Another reason that Epstein's claims that Edwards was "pumping" cases for investors
fails is that Edwards filed all three cases almost a year before he was hired by RRA or even knew
of :Scott Rothstein.
Epstein makes allegations that the complaints contained sensational
allegations for the purposes of luring investors; however, language in the complaints remained
virtually unchanged from the first filing in 2008 and from the overwhelming evidence the Court
can see for itself that all of the facts alleged by Edwards in the complaints were true.
Epstein ultimately paid to settle all three of the cases Edwards filed against him for more
money than he paid to settle any of the other claims against him. At Epstein's request, the terms
2 In a further effort to harass Edwards, Epstein also filed a bar complaint with the Florida Bar against Edwards. The
Florida Bar has dismissed that complaint. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
10
of the settlement were kept confidential. The sum that he paid to settle all these cases is
therefore not filed with this pleading and will be provided to the court for in-camera review.
Epstein chose to make this payment as the result of a federal court ordered mediation process,
which he himself sought (over the objection of Jane Doe, Edwards' client in federal court) in an
effort to resolve the case.
See Defendant's Motion for Settlement Conference, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-CV-80893
(S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doc. #168) attached hereto as Exhibit A. Notably,
Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his payments as a result of that
conference - in July 2010, more than seven months after he filed this lawsuit against Edwards.
Accordingly, Epstein could not have been the victim of any scheme to "pump" the cases against
him, because he never paid to settle the cases until well after Edwards had left RRA and had
severed all connection with Scott Rothstein (December 2009).
In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for
example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge
Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein
simply chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doctrine of res judicata from
somehow re-litigating what happened in (for example) the Jane Doe case. "The doctrine of res
judicata makes a judgment on the merits conclusive not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with
propriety have been litigated and determined in that action." AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of
Transp., So.2d , 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kiinbrell
v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper "pumping" of a
11
particular case could have been resolved in that vet)) case rather than now re-litigated in satellite
litigation.
3. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Claim of
Abuse of Process Because He Acted Properly Within the Boundaries of the
Law in Pursuit of the Legitimate Interests of his Clients.
Epstein's Second Amended Complaint raises several claims of "abuse of process." An
abuse of process claim requires proof of three elements: "(1) that the defendant made an illegal,
improper, or perverted use of process; (2) that the defendant had ulterior motives or purposes in
exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process; and (3) that, as a result of such
action on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damage. " S & Ilnvestments v. Payless
Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla. 4 th Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted). In
fact, this Court is very familiar with this cause of action, as Edwards has correctly stated this
cause in his counterclaim against Epstein. Edwards is entitled to summary judgment because
Epstein cannot prove these elements.
The first element of an abuse of process claim is that a defendant made "an illegal,
improper, or perverted use of process." On the surface, Epstein's Complaint appears to contain
several allegations of such improper process.
On examination, however, each of these
allegations amounts to nothing other than a claim that Epstein was unhappy with some
discovery proceeding, motion or argument made by Edwards. This is not the stuff of an abuse of
process claim, particularly where Epstein fails to allege that he was required to do something as
the result of Edwards' pursuit of the claims against him. See Marty v. Gresh, 501 So.2d 87, 90
(Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (affirming summary judgment on an abuse of process claim where
"appellant's lawsuit caused appellee to do nothing against her will").
12
In any event, none of the allegations of "improper" process can survive summary
judgment scrutiny, because every action Edwards took was entirely proper and reasonably
calculated to lead to the successful prosecution of the pending claims against Epstein as detailed
in Edwards' Affidavit.
Epstein also fails to meet the second element of an abuse of process claim: that Edwards
had some sort of ulterior motive. The case law is clear that on an abuse of process claim a
"plaintiff must prove that the process was used for an immediate purpose other than that for
which it was designed." MI Investments v. Payless Flea Market, Inc., 36 So.3d 909, 917 (Fla.
4th Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Biondo v. Powers, 805 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2002).
As a consequence, "[w]here the process was used to accomplish the result for which it was
intended, regardless of an incidental or concurrent motive of spite or ulterior purpose, there is no
abuse of process." Id. (internal quotation omitted). Here, Edwards has fully denied any
improper motive, See Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Epstein has no evidence of any such
motivation. Indeed, it is revealing that Epstein chose not to ask even a single question about this
subject during the deposition of Edwards. In addition, all of the actions that Epstein complains
about were in fact used for the immediate purpose of furthering the lawsuits filed by L.M., E.W.,
and Jane Doe. In other words, these actions all were both intended to accomplish and, in fact,
successfully "accomplished the results for which they were intended" -- whether it was securing
additional discovery or presenting a legal issue to the court handling the case or ultimately
maximizing the recovery of damages from Epstein on behalf of his victims. Accordingly,
Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on any claim that he abused process for this reason as
well.
13
4. Edwards is Entitled to Summary Judgment to the Extent His Claim is Based
On Pursuit of Discovery Concerning Epstein's Friends Because All Such
Efforts Were Reasonably Calculated to Lead to Relevant and Admissible
Testimony About Epstein's Abuse of Minor Girls.
Epstein has also alleged that Edwards improperly pursued discovery from some his close
friends.
Such discovery, Epstein claims, was improper because Edwards knew that these
individuals lacked any discoverable information about the sexual assault cases against Epstein.
Here again, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment, as each of the friends of Epstein
were reasonably believed to possess discoverable information. The undisputed facts show the
following with regard to each of the persons raised in Epstein's complaint:
e
With regard to Donald Trump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr.
Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed
Facts.
• With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor), Edwards had sound
legal basis for believing Mr. Dershowitz had relevant and discoverable
information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
• With regard to former President Bill Clinton, Edwards had sound legal basis for
believing former President Clinton had relevant and discoverable information.
See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
® With regard to Ramer Sony Record executive Tommy Mottola, Edwards was not
the attorney that noticed Mr. Mottola's deposition. See Statement of Undisputed
Facts.
® With regard to illusionist David Copperfield, Edwards had sound legal basis for
believing Mr. Copperfield had relevant and discoverable information. See
Statement of Undisputed Facts.
e
With regard to framer New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Edwards had
sound legal basis for naming Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson on
his witness list. See Statement of Undisputed Facts.
It is worth noting that the standard for discovery is a very liberal one. To notice someone
for a deposition, of course, it is not required that the person deposed actually end up producing
14
admissible evidence. Otherwise, every deposition that turned out to be a false alarm would lead
to an "abuse of process" claim. Moreover, the rules of discovery themselves provide that a
deposition need only be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the discovery that Edwards pursued has to be considered against the backdrop
of Epstein's obstructionist tactics. As the Court is aware, in both this case and all other cases
filed against him, Epstein has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege rather than answer any
substantive questions. Epstein has also helped secure attorneys for his other household staff who
assisted in the process of recruiting the minor girls, who in turn also asserted their Fifth
Amendment rights rather than explain what happened behind closed doors in Epstein's mansion
in West Palm Beach. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. It is against this backdrop that
Edwards followed up on one of the only remaining lines of inquiry open to him: discovery aimed
at Epstein's friends who might have been in a position to corroborate the fact that Epstein was
sexually abusing young girls.
In the context of the sexual assault cases that Edwards had filed against Epstein, any act
of sexual abuse had undeniable relevance to the case — even acts of abuse Epstein committed
against minor girls other than L.M., E.W., or Jane Doe. Both federal and state evidence rules
make acts of child abuse against other girls admissible in the plaintiff s case in chief as proof of
"modus operandi" or "motive" or "common scheme or plan." See Fed. R. Evid. 415 (evidence of
other acts of sexual abuse automatically admissible in a civil case); Fla. Stat. Ann. 90.404(b)
(evidence of common scheme admissible); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (other
acts of potential sexual misconduct admissible).
15
A second reason exists for making discovery of Epstein's acts of abuse of other minor
girls admissible. Juries considering punitive damages issues are plainly entitled to consider "the
existence and frequency of similar past conduct." TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources
Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28 (1993). This is because the Supreme Court recognizes "that a
recidivist may be punished more severely than a first offender . . . [because] repeated misconduct
is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance." BMW of North America, Inc.
v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addition, juries can consider
other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calculation in awarding punitive damages,
because "evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while knowing
. . . that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that strong medicine is
required to cure the defendant's disrespect for the law." Id. at 576-77. In the cases Edwards
filed against Epstein, his clients were entitled to attempt to prove that Epstein "repeatedly
engaged in prohibited conduct" — i.e., because he was a predatory pedophile, he sexually
assaulted dozens and dozens of minor girls. The discovery of Epstein's friends who might have
had direct or circumstantial evidence of other acts of sexual assault was accordingly entirely
proper. Edwards is therefore entitled summary judgment to the extent his claim is based on
efforts by Edwards to obtain discovery of Epstein's friends.
III. EPSTEIN'S LAWSUIT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL TO
PARTICIPATE IN REASONABLE DISCOVERY.
As is readily apparent from the facts of this case, Epstein has filed a lawsuit but then
refused to allow any real discovery about the merits of his case. Instead, when asked hard
questions about whether he has any legitimate claim at all, Epstein has hidden behind the Fifth
16
Amendment. As a result, under the "sword and shield doctrine widely recognized in Florida
caselaw, his suit must be dismissed.
"[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his
lawsuit." Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist.
Ct. App. 2009) (Griffin, J., concurring specially). Thus, "a person may not seek affirmative
relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the
fifth amendment as both a 'sword and a shield.'" DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290, 1290
(Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th
Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). Put another way, "[a] civil litigant's fifth amendment right to avoid selfincrimination
may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking
affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with
the defendant's discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant's defenses." Rollins Burdick
Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Court App.
1983).
Here, Epstein is trying to do precisely what the "well settled" law forbids. Specifically,
he is trying to obtain "affirmative relief' — i.e., forcing Edwards to pay money damages — while
simultaneously precluding Edwards from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the
allegations that form the basis for the relief Epstein is seeking. As recounted more fully in the
statement of undisputed facts, Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his
lawsuit as:
"Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr.
Edwards ginned up?"
® "Well, which of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were fabricated?"
17
• "Is there anything in L.M.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of
2008. which you contend to be false?"
• "I would like to know whether you ever had any physical contact with the person
referred to as Jane Doe in that [federal] complaint?"
• "Did you ever have any physical contact with E.W.?"
• "What is the actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?"
The matters addressed in these questions are the central focus of Epstein's claims against
Edwards. Epstein's refusal to answer these and literally every other substantive question put to
him in discovery has deprived Edwards of even a basic understanding of the evidence alleged to
support claims against him. Moreover, by not offering any explanation of his allegations,
Epstein is depriving Edwards of any opportunity to conduct third party discovery and
opportunity to challenge Epstein's allegations.
It is the clear law that "the chief purpose of our discovery rules is to assist the truthfinding
function of our justice system and to avoid trial by surprise or ambush," Scipio v. State,
928 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2006), and "full and fair discovery is essential to these important goals,"
McFadden v. State, 15 So.3d 755, 757 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2009). Accordingly, it is important
for the Court to insure "not only compliance with the technical provisions of the discovery rules,
but also adherence to the purpose and spirit of those rules in both the criminal and civil context."
McFadden, 15 So.3d at 757. Epstein has repeatedly blocked "full and fair discovery," requiring
dismissal of his claim against Edwards.
18
IV. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM
EPSTEIN'S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND
THEREFORE TO SUIVIIVIARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN'S CLAIM.
Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against him for a second and
entirely independent reason: Epstein's repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment raise
adverse inferences against him that leave no possibility that a reasonable factfinder could reach a
verdict in his favor.
In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must fulfill a
"gatekeeping function" and should ask whether "a reasonable trier of fact could possibly" reach
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Willingham v. City of Orlando, 929 So.2d 43, 48 (Fla. 5th Dist.
Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Given all of the inferences that are to be drawn against
Epstein, no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Epstein was somehow the victim of
improper civil lawsuits filed against him. Instead, a reasonable finder of fact could only find that
Epstein was a serial molester of children who was being held accountable through legitimate
suits brought by Edwards and others on behalf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized.
"[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against
parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered
against them." Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 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 Inv. Coip., 615
So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, "'Silence is
often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d
19