Epstein Rothstein et al Case No AG Epsteins Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Edwardss Counterclaim Page of6 claim On March Epstein filed his Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwardss Counterclaim attached as Exhibit Edwards fails to sufficiently plead and has no evidence to support a claim against Epstein for abuse of process Therefore Epstein is entitled to judgment on the pleadings or alternatively summary judgment Legal Standard In passing on a motion for judgment on the pleadings made by defendant all well pleaded material allegations of the complaint and all fair inferences to be drawn therefrom must be taken as true and the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action by his complaint See Reinhard Bliss So 2d Fla Martinez Florida Power Light Co So 2d Fla Lutz Protective Life Ins Co So 2d Fla 4th DCA The test we apply in this instance is the same as if defendant has made a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Fla Civ See Bliss So 2d at Martinez So 2d at see also Lutz So 2d at holding that judgment on the pleadings may be granted when the moving party is clearly entitled to a judgment as a mater of law based solely on the content of the pleadings A movant is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories admissions affidavits and other materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is not genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law See Fla Epstein Rothstein et al Case No AG Epsteins Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Edwardss Counterclaim Page of Civ However a defendant is entitled to summary judgment when there is a complete absence of evidence to support the plaintiffs claims See Laschke Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp So 2d Fla 2d DCA citing Holl Talcott So 2d Fla Argument Epstein is entitled to judgment on the pleadings or alternatively summary judgment on Edwardss Counterclaim for abuse of process because Edwards fails to allege and there is absolutely no evidence of any wrongful act or misuse of process after the initial process was issued The crux of Edwardss Counterclaim is that Epstein filed the instant action for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate Edwards L.M and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value See Counterclaim These allegations fall short of establishing a cause of action for abuse of process Florida courts have repeatedly held that the act constituting misuse of the process must occur after process was issued See Whitney Information Network Inc Gagnon F.Supp.2d M.D Fla dismissing abuse of process claim where count merely alleges that plaintiffs filed the lawsuit for a variety of improper or unlawful purposes and failed to allege any post-issuance abuse of process McMurray U-Haul Co Inc So 2d Fla 4th DCA finding that while appellants alleged complaint was filed for a multitude of improper purposes such as to coerce settlement of appellants debt appellants failed to state a cause of action Epstein Rothstein et al Case No AG Epsteins Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Edwardss Counterclaim Page of6 for abuse of process because they failed to alleged an act which constituted misuse of the process after it was issued Additionally the allegation that Epstein filed the claims against Edwards to intimidate him is inapposite In Della-Donna Nova University Inc So 2d Fla 4th DCA the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiffs abuse of process claim finding that the defendant demonstrated the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact since there was no allegation or evidence of any act by defendant which constituted misuse of process after it was issued The court further noted that filing a lawsuit with ulterior motive of harassment does not constitute abuse of process kl at In Marty Gresh So 2d Fla 1st DCA the court reversed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on his abuse of process claim and reasoned that while certain pre-process events may suggest a malicious intent the maliciousness or lack of foundation of the asserted cause of action itself is actually irrelevant to the tort of abuse of process Internal citation omitted Moreover the court noted that the facts alleged speak to pre-process rather than post-process events and hence fail to advance appellees cause of action for abuse of process kl Emphasis in original The court concluded that the trial court should have granted defendants motion for a directed verdict on plaintiffs abuse of process claim kl Equally unavailing is Edwardss allegation that Epstein ignored the prior written notice requirement to initiate a civil theft claim See Counterclaim In Miami Herald Publishing Co Ferre F.Supp S.D Fla the court held Epstein Rothstein et al Case No AG Epsteins Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Edwardss Counterclaim Page of that defendants allegations that plaintiffs abused process by commencing lawsuit and failing to follow procedures under Florida Public Record Act before lawsuit was commenced failed to state a claim for abuse of process as neither involves the requisite allegation of post-issuance abuse of process Nevertheless Epstein was not required to give written notice as he did not assert a cause of action under Fla Stat which requires a pre-suit written demand Edwards has failed to allege and there is a complete absence of evidence of any misuse of process after the instant lawsuit was filed and served Accordingly the Court must enter judgment on the pleadings or alternatively summary judgment in favor of Epstein of Edwardss Counterclaim for abuse of process WHEREFORE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN requests the Court enter judgment on the pleadings or alternatively summary judgment in his favor on Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs BRADLEY EDWARDS Counterclaim for abuse of process and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and proper Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S Mail to the following addressees on thisol ay of March Gary Farmer Jr Esq Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL fax Attorneys for Defendant L.M Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Epstein Rothstein et al Case No AG Epsteins Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Edwardss Counterclaim Page of6 Jack Scarola Esq Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Law Offices of Marc Nurik Counsel to Scott Rothstein One East Broward Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Attorneys for Defendant Bradley Edwards BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN LLP Banyan Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Fa Robert Critton Jr Florid Bar Michael Pike Florida Bar Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein FAX SBARCY DENNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN A.Nb FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROT!-ISTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually und L.M individually Defendantst I ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAJM OF DEFENDANT BRADLEY EDWARDS Defendant BRADLEY EDWARDS individually by aud through his Urtdersigned attorneys files his Artswer and Counterclaim to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN in the above-styled matter December as follows ANSWER GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Pora.graph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Pam.graph EXHIBIT FAX SBARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Cowitcrclaim of Edwards Page2 of16 Defendant EDW ARl is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits tl1.at he is an individual residing in Broward County Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida otherwise Defendant EDWARDS denies the balance of1he allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS 1;1dinits that Defendant L.M is art individual residing in Palm Beach County Florida represented by A and EDWARDS in a civil lawsuit against Epstein and is now represented by EDWARDS but no longer represented by RR.A Otherwise Defendant BDW ARDS denies the balance of the ullegations contained in Paragraph including but not limited to the allegation that L.M was ever represented by ROTHSTEIN and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits that non-party RRA a Florida Professiontt.l Service Corporation with a principal address of East Las ls Boulevard Suite l6S0 Ft Lauderdale FL and it conducted business and filed lawsuits on behalf of clients in Palm Beach County Florida however RRA never filed a law uit on behalf of L.M nor did it file lawsuits on behalf of other victims against EPSTEIN Those lawsuits were filed by EDWARDS prior to any association with or knowledge of RR.A Otherwise Defendant EDWARDS denies the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page of16 Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDW ARDS admits that RRA beld itself out as legitimately and properly engaging in the practice of luw otherwise Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegatfons and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to e1ther admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these a1legatiot1s and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these aBegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegatio:ns contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof the,:eof Defendant EDWARDS is witfo:,ut knowledge to either admit or deny r.he allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these aUegations and demands strict proof fu reof Defcpdant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Pamgraph and thereby denies these allegations 3nd demands strict proof thereof FAX SEARCY DENNEY Bpstein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards of Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations cont0ined in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict _proof thereof 7_ Defendant EDWARDS admits ihe allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defondanti EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without la1owledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph I and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits that the identity of claimants against Epstein was shielded through the use of initials All other allegations of P.:i.ragraph are denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein RDthstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page oflG Defendant EDWARDS admits that he represented claimants against Epstein on behalf ofRRA A.JI ether allegations of Paragw.ph are denfod and Defendant demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defondai14 EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant 243DWARDS denies the allegations co:ntained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the u11egations contained in Paragraph except hat EDWARDS achnits the evidence against Epstein was in foot real Defondant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thernby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations Md demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the 1;1llegations contained in Paragraph except that EDW A.RDS specifically denies that he engaged i.n or had knowledge of any of the alleged unethical or illegal conduct FAX SEARCY DENNEY Ep9tein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page ofl5 Defendant EDW ARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the a Il egations contained in Paragraph except that EDWARDS specifically denies that he engaged in or had knowledge of any of the alleged unethical or illegal conduct Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegation contained i.n Paragraph cx:cept that EDWARDS specifically denies that he engaged in or had knowledge of any ofilie aHeged unefuical or illegal conduct Defendiilltt EDWARDS fa without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demartds strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph exce:Pt that EDWARDS specificaUy denies that he engaged in or had knowledge of any of the alleged unethical or illegal conduct Defendant EDWARDS admits that he deposed three of Epsteins pilots and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot otherwise Defendant denies the balance of the allegations of Pru-agraph and demands str.ict prooftheroof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph except that EDWARDS denies that he sought to subpoena Tommy Matto fa FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Counmclaim of Edwards Pa of Defendant EDWARDS is withont knowledge to either admit or deny the all:!.!Il_ egations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof rm Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in PE1ragraph a and and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits that he Berger and Russell Adler another named partner in RRA all atl:ended Epsteins deposition otherwise Defendant EDWARDS denies the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendan EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS den.ies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof except th EDWARDS admits that he addressed the Court on July and the best evidence of the content of his statements is tl1e official transc:ript of that proceeding Defondant EDWARDS admits that he filed a Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Appointrr;wnt of a Receiver to Take Charge of Prop rty of Epsteln and to Post a million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment in Jane Doe Epstein Case No CV 93-Marra/Johnson The motion was reported in the press Defendant EDWARDS admits tllat the motion was denied The balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph ure denied and Defendant demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and the:reby derlies these aJfogation.s and demands strict proof thereof Defendant FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rmhsteh:1 Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page of16 EDWARDS denies the allegations ccmtained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph i and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits the allegations contained in Paragraph Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demand.l strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS admits that they knew what it said and they knew the civil provisions in the agreement had no impact whatsoever on the three pending Civil Actions The concept behind certain civil provisions in the NPA was to allow an alleged victim to resovl;l a civil claim with Epstein maintain her compJete privacy and anonymjty and move on with her life otherwise Defondant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either adJllit or deny the balance of the allegations contained in Pai-agraph and therefore denies the balance of the alegations contained in Par gxaph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained jn Paragraph and thereby denies these allegations and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations ontained in Pilragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer end Counterclaim of Edwards Page oll6 Defendant EDWARDS admits that L.M g_ave a sworn taped statement to the FBI and a subsequent deposition in the civil proceedings The best evidence of the content of these statements is the transcript of each Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Pru:-c1gi:aph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained irt Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDW ARDS denies the allegations COJ1.tained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Count 1-Violaiion of et seq Fla Stat-Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act-Against All Defendants Defendant EDWARDS admits or denies the rulegations contained in Paragraphs as previously set forth herein Defendant EDW A.RDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page l0of16 Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and de-mands-strict-pr.onf th re Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof DefendantJ EDW Al.U denies the allegations contained in Paragraph aod demands strict proof thereof Defendantl EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proo thereof Count II-fl rida RJCO-"Racketeer Influenced and Co:rruQt Organization Act Pursuant to sech Fla Stat Against All Defendant Defendant EDWARDS admits or denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs and as previously set forth herein Defendant EDWARDS denfos the allegations cont incd in Paragra1_ and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained iu Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS is without knowledge to either admit or deny the Jlegations contained in Paragraph except Defendant EDWARDS admits that as of the filing of this Complaint criminal charges have only been brought against ROTHSTEfr.J otherwise FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Pi!ge l1 ofl6 Defendanti EDWARDS denies the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph and lizJ011 Qf Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contafoed in Paragraph and mands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defe11dant EDW ARbS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS derues the allegations contained in Paragraph and demunds strict proof thereof Count I-Abuse of Process--Aga5nst All Defendants Defendant EDWARDS admits or denies the allegations contained in PEliagraphs and as previously set forth herein Defendant EDWARDSI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS derues the allegations containi;;d in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defondan.t EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands std ct proof thereof Count N-Fraud-Ag:ainst All Defendants Defendant EDWARDS ad.m.its or denies the allegations contained 5n Paragraphs and as previously set forth herein FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstejn Rothstein Answi::r and Counterclaim of Edwards Page of16 Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands-strict-proof.there Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and d.emao.ds strict proo-f thereof Conspirncy to Commit Fraud-Against All Defendants Defendant EDWARDS admits or denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs and as previously set fon:hherein Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragre.ph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Para.graph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS denies the allegations contained in Paragraph and demands strict proof thereof Defendant EDWARDS has retained the unde;i:signed attorneys to defend this action against him and has agreed to pay them a reasonable foe and costs All allegations not otheJ:Wise expressly ddressed are denied WHEREFORE having fully answered the claims against him EDWARDS demands judgment in his favor artd an awa:rd of fees and costs puxswmt to the prevailing party provisions of the applicable statutes pursuant to which Epstein has brought his claims COUNTERCLAlM Bradley Edwards EDWARDS sues Jeffrey Epstein EPSTEIN and alleges FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstelrt Roths,ein Answer and Counte.rclaim of Edwards Page ofl6 This is an action for damar,es in an amount in excess of the minimum Counter/plaintiff EDW ARDS is sui juris ieside in Broward County Florida and is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto Counter/defendant EPSTEIN is suiJuris and is a resident of Palm Beach County Florida EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having ente:i:ed into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity With a large number of female children over v.n extended period of time in violation of both State and Fed ral criminal laws EPSTEIN was sued civjlly by a I arge number of his victims Many of the cas;eB against him have been settled au.d others remain pending as a consequence ofwhlch EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of huge civil judgments for both compensatory and p1mitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims rep esented by EDWARDS In tlle face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt EPSTEIN repeatedly asserte:d his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer MY substantive questions regarding his sexual exploitation ofhfa minor victims Lacking nny substantive defense to the claims against him EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability by employing the extraordinary financial resources at hls disposal to intimidate his victims into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those clainv for substantially less than their just valu FAX SEAR.CY DENNEY Epstein R.othstein Answer and Covnterdaim ofEdw:m:ls Page of In sorne cfr umstances EPSTEINs tactics have proven successful while other vrcfnns assault upon them and have persisted in the prosecution of their claims EDWARDS clients are among those who continue the prosecution ofthe.h claims While prosecuting tlte legitimate claims on behalf of his clients EDWAROS has not engaged in any 11nefuicaI illegal or improper conduct nor has EDWARDS mien any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise Nevertheless EPSTEIN has filed the claims herein again.st EDWARDS and EDWARDS client L.M for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS L.M and others into obandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value EPSTEIN has in his Complaint directly Heged that EDWARDS was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware tl1at there is absolutely no evidence whaisoc..ver to support such false asserlion.s Indeed his Complaint is replete with speculation conjecturt and innuendo and is entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious allegations Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for hfa claims EPSTEIN has ignor the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim EPSTEW has ulterior motives and purposes in exercising such illegal improper and perverted use of process His real purpose was to put pressure on EDWARDS L.M and FAX SEARCY DENNEY Epsfem Ro!hsrein Answet and lunterclaim of Edwards Page of16 other victims by publishing what amounts to notbing mote than a press release issued tmder the cloakofprotection-ef-th lii gntion_p_ti vilege As a result of EPSTEINs wr fu:l on d:u as a ll ed A RD ha ffi re and will continue to suffer damRgeE including but nQt limited to injury to his reputation interference in his profession11 re;lationships the loss of the vnlue of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities und the cost of defonding against EPSTEINs spurious and baseless claims WHEREFORE EDWARDS demands judgment agafost EPSTEIN for compensatory damages costs and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the drcurnstances Counter/plaintiff BDW ARDS reserves the right to assert a claitn for punitive damages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites Countet/plaintiff EDWARDS further demands trial by jury I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Pru and U.S Mail to all counsel on the attached list this J.J ay of December Jae ola or a.BarNo cy Denney Scarola B3T.Ohart Shipley P.A H9 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida Phone Fax Attorneys for Defendant EDWARDS PAX SEARCY DENNEY Epstein Rothstein Answer and Counterclaim of Edwards Page of Robert Critton Jr Esq Michael Pike Esq Burman Critton Luttier Coleman Banyan Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Attorneys for Plaintiff COUNSEL LlST IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Fla Civ Plaintiff Case No AG SCOTT ROTHSTE individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually and LIVI individually Defendants ORDER ON MOTION OF COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Motion of Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein for a More Definite Statement and Motion to Dismiss and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in these premises it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Counter-Defendants Motion is hereby-gramedT de ied de da--p lz a bo:ud LL fr Jid 7k t,Nt!f abu;J I DONE AND ORDERED at Palm Beach County Courth West Palm Beach Florida thid-0 __ oay of Jti1 ge Copied furnished to GARY FARMER JR ESQ Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL JACK SCAROLA ESQ Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL and JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue South Suite West Palm Beach FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually and L.M individually Defendants I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Complex Litigation Fla Civ Case No AG ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN hereinafter EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorneys files this his answer to the Counterclaim and states Without knowledge and deny Admit Deny Epstein admits that he is a convicted felon having entered into a Plea Agreement with the State of Florida As to the remaining allegations in paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants Epstein Rothstein Page claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Epstein admits he has been sued civilly by a number of individuals and admits that a number of cases have been settled and other cases remain pending As to the remaining allegations of paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Epstein admits that he has asserted his th Amendment right against self incrimination as well as other constitutional rights As to the remaining allegations of paragraph Epstein Rothstein Page Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla 4tli DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Epstein admits that Edwards has clients prosecuting claims against him As to the remaining allegations in paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific Epstein Rothstein Page denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Epstein denies that Edwards has not engaged in any unethical illegal or improper conduct and further denies that Edwards has not taken action inconsistent with the representation of his clients As to the remaining allegations in paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Epstein denies that he had filed this cause of action to intimidate anyone into abandoning and/or settling any claims that have been made against Epstein As to the remaining Epstein Rothstein Page allegations in paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege The complaint is the best evidence of the allegations asserted by the Plaintiff Epstein and Epstein denies the remaining allegations of paragraph Epstein denies any ulterior motive purpose or any illegal improper or perverted use of process and further denies the allegation regarding his real purpose relative to Edwards and L.M As to the remaining allegations in paragraph Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination See DeLisi Bankers Ins Company So.2d Fla th DCA Malloy Hogan S.Ct the Fifth Amendments Self Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a La a F?k ɢ?X LDZlv??z r?ߎ1 S??4MX u?c?z Y?/m ХIj J??n?u wkP gU I cK V?W O?E F7蔶?mG sU?I TO?5x-_S Ul XI l?W I g3 l3 b?Cq F?K pIn?7?J Ǧ?e?r?d x?Ǿ ըo 6HX?o?m 8Hz a KR Ş?Z?Q wq dt DZ Yn LW6 y??f o?l O8 K?c 2c Vfx?r ʊ?c Ֆ?Ca VR a RAd ToD;??m X??i jՑ of qc?Z1?iKy?ۈʬqS f?)l 3??v?TVQ tS B?t q?fh fw i M?m U?I?Xs boB J?z s:?K W?J?JI UatD n?(Hz O0D?k h?diLi"0 p??xoȰJy ǹxJ?:?w i?o RQ ˆ?/e 6Tca?2w Zod QN?n g?AaгI??s q??dO??P?p yHX gp㥥 wči 2?xҡ?2ն?kу?fn H?a?D?N i?j cf Qz?T?vL X??Pyռ d??e j?m igi??ȹ?GW?!g l?j??U S㕊 V?ʆ xPG Ɛ?Sݪ W?kt??C Ԓ?Auv?AC?E?S9 C?Q ٦s Dh իA?O p4 Sų πr 퀡??ذ?ѭ?F K?7ƀ y0e?x k?Rc?nC s-y٢ eӊ?h s?u q??b?ҝ Y?S Z?a З?T I/?ݻ Q?Q I MF??k40o?ujT"?PW 5?No MSŸ Oq jW?K?d?YV di6 ha?i Epstein Rothstein Page claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court Fed.Prac Proc Civ 3d Effect of Failure to Deny Privilege Against Self-Incrimination court must treat the defendants claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial See also Fla.Jur.2d Evidence Defendants in civil actions a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege against self-incrimination because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege Deny AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense Edwards fails to state a cause of action for abuse of process Edwards has failed to allege any misuse of process after the instant lawsuit was filed and served Accordingly Edwards has failed to state a cause of action for abuse of process and his Counterclaim must therefore be dismissed Second Affirmative Defense To the extent Edwards claims Epsteins lawsuit/acts are tortious in nature the litigation privilege is an absolute immunity that covers both defamatory statements and other tortuous behavior during a judicial proceeding Epstein Rothstein Page Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S Mail to the following addressees on this th day of March MARC_S NURIK ESQ Law Offices of Mark Nurik One East Broward Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Fax Gary Farmer Jr Esq Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman PL Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Fax Attorneys for Defendant Scott Rothstein Attorneys for Defendant L.M Jack Scarola Esq Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Suite West Palm Beach FL Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys for Defendant Bradley Edwards BURMAN CRITTON LUTTIER COLEMAN LLP Banyan Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Critton Jr Flonoa Michael Pike Florida Bar A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8
