Filing E-Filed PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Case No PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTIONS AND Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Epstein objects to Defendant/Counter PlaintiffBradley Edwards Edwards Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Florida Statutes section and and states INTRODUCTION This Court must deny Edwards request for judicial notice of Epsteins New York State Sex Offender registration information pursuant to the Florida Evidence Code Although Edwards asks this Court to exercise its discretion to take judicial notice of the New York registration it does not squarely fall under matters which this Court may take judicial notice Moreover sections and Florida Statutes preclude the registration from admissibility because it is wholly irrelevant to any claim to be tried in this matter and is presented solely to unfairly prejudice or inflame the jury against Epstein Likewise the registration information is akin to FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL SHARON BOCK CLERK PM evidence that is precluded by sections and Florida Statutes Therefore this Court must deny the transparent request to prejudice the jury RECORD FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE The only issues for trial are framed by the pleadings in this lawsuit Epsteins Complaint and damages against Defendant Scott Rothstein and Edwards Counterclaim for malicious prosecution against Epstein There is no issue in any Complaint or Counterclaim as to Epsteins status as registered in the state of New York The Court will not find this issue in Epsteins Complaint Edwards Counterclaim for malicious prosecution or either partys Affirmative Defenses pled or proposed MEMORANDUM Sections and Florida Statutes The New York State Sex Offender registration information is neither relevant nor probative to any issue raised by Epstein nor any element of proof that must be met by Edwards in his malicious prosecution Counterclaim Instead this request is merely a transparent attempt to prejudice the jury before it has a legitimate opportunity to determine if Epstein had probable cause to file his action against Edwards Whether or not Epstein is a registered sex offender has zero relation to any of the damages sought by Epstein against Defendant Rothstein Likewise and significant to Edwards Counterclaim whether Epstein is a registered sex offender does not prove any element of the malicious prosecution claim that Edwards has raised See e.g Alamo Rent-A Car Inc Mancusi So 2d Fla Contrary to Edwards recent characterizations of the lawsuit filed by Epstein against Edwards on which the malicious prosecution claim is based Epstein did not allege that Edwards brought false tort claims Rather in December Epstein alleged that Scott Rothsteins partner Edwards exploited the civil tort lawsuits against Epstein for the purposes of luring investors into the Ponzi scheme that was being carried out under the auspices of Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler by attempting to conduct unnecessary and irrelevant discovery by filing duplicative actions and by other similar actions outlined more fully in Epsteins Complaint against Edwards One clear example of Edwards litigation tactics that led Epstein to perceive a connection between Edwards and Rothsteins Ponzi scheme was Edwards motion alleging that Epstein was fraudulently transferring assets and seeking a Court order requiring Epstein to post a million bond to secure a potential future judgment on the tort claims In the motion Edwards extensively and publicly pied facts pertaining to Epsteins wealth claiming his billionaire status which were reasonably perceived by Epstein once the truth finally came out about the Rothstein Ponzi scheme to be designed to entice existing investors or lure more investors to Rothsteins Ponzi scheme by citing Epsteins wealth The only evidence Edwards could supply the court however showed that Epstein merely transferred title to a few automobiles There was nothing fraudulent in those transfers and the value of the automobiles was minor relative to Epsteins overall wealth United States District Judge Kenneth A Marra determined that Edwards motion seeking the million bond was entirely devoid of evidence of Epsteins alleged fraudulent transfers See Order D.E Case No Exhibit A Furthermore even if this Court considers that the evidence might be relevant in some remote way to the claims for trial the registration information should still be excluded under section which provides relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of issues misleading the jury or needless presentation of cumulative evidence Florida courts have excluded evidence of pnor convictions in analogous situations finding that any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice Horton State So 2d Fla 2d DCA Likewise here any remotely probative value is far outweighed by the prejudicial nature of the evidence as well as the likelihood that it would confuse the true issues in this lawsuit and mislead the jury as to the subject of the claims that are being tried Sections and Florida Statutes Additionally the registration information is inadmissible under sections and Florida Statutes because its only purpose is to disparage Epsteins character Florida law is clear that vidence of a persons character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion except under certain limited circumstances not present here Fla Stat see also Fla Stat When character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge claim or defense proof may be made of specific instances of that persons conduct emphasis added Edwards Request for Judicial Notice is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to inject irrelevant and prejudicial character evidence into the trial contrary to well-settled Florida law See e.g Pandula Fonseca So Fla neither a witnes general character nor particular phases of character can be gone into Sections and Florida Statutes The registration information is also inadmissible under sections and Florida Statutes because it is irrelevant to Epsteins truthfulness and goes far beyond the bare fact he entered a plea agreement See Fla Stat character evidence used to impeach a witness may refer only to character relating to truthfulness While section permits a party to impeach a witness by evidence if the witness was convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty Epsteins registration information falls outside this narrow category of impeachment evidence by addressing the nature of his crime a sexual offense Impeachment under section is strictly limited to the fact the witness was convicted of a felony or crime involving dishonesty and the number of convictions Further details including the nature of the crime are off limits See Rogers State So 2d Fla 4th DCA Impeachment by prior convictions is restricted to determining if the witness has previously been convicted ofa crime and ifso how many times Batte Pomeroy So 2d Fla 4th DCA Questioning is limited to whether the witness has ever been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty The witness may be required to give the number of convictions but if he answers truthfully no further questions may be asked In particular the nature of the crimes may not be elicited emphasis added Reeser Boats Unlimited Inc So 2d Fla 4th DCA Neither statute permits the elicitation of the nature of the crime because any additional light on his credibility would not compensate for the possible prejudicial effect on the minds of the jurors emphasis added Sections and Florida Statutes Finally Edwards claims that the New York State Sex Offender registration information is a matter of which this Court may take judicial notice pursuant to the procedure set out in section Florida Statutes However the substantive part of the Florida Evidence Code that addresses matters as to which this Court may take judicial notice does not refer to or authorize judicial notice of out-of-state sex offender registration information under the circumstances of this case Rather items that are typical for judicial notice pertain to acts of Congress constitutional or statutory law the Federal Register laws of foreign nations official acts of one of the three branches of government court records rules of court county charters the Florida Administrative Code ordinances or facts not subject to dispute because generally known within the courts territorial jurisdiction or official seals of governmental agencies or United States departments There is no listing for out-of-state sex offender registration information CONCLUSION As supported by the pleadings and the record in this lawsuit whether or not Epstein is a registered sex offender in the state of New York is not probative of any material issue for this trial Rather this consistent attempt by Edwards to re-litigate his closed civil tort actions and interject mini-trials in this matter must be rejected The purpose is inconsistent with the Florida Evidence Code specifically sections and Florida Statutes by attempting to take advantage of the jurys negative reaction to such information WHEREFORE Epstein respectfully requests that this Court deny Edwards Request for Judicial Notice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on November through the Courts e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration Jack Scarola LINK ROCKENBACH PA Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach Florida fax By Isl Scott Link Scott Link FBN Kara Berard Rockenbach FBN Angela Many FBN Primary Scott linkrocklaw.com Primary Kara linkrocklaw.com Primary Angela linkrocklaw.com Secondary Tina linkrocklaw.com Secondary Troy linkrocklaw.com Secondary Tanya linkrocklaw.com Secondary Eservice linkrocklaw.com Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Nichole Segal Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Burlington Rockenbach P.A Courthouse Commons Suite West Railroad A venue West Palm Beach FL mep searcylaw.com jsx searcylaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards West Palm Beach FL njs FLAppellateLaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Bradley Edwards Marc Nurik Edwards Pottinger LLC Law Offices of Marc Nurik Andrews Avenue Suite One Broward Boulevard Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Ft Lauderdale FL brad epllc.com marc nuriklaw.com staff.efile pathtojustice.com Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards Jack A Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL goldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EXHIBIT A Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of JANE DOE NO Plaintiff vs JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I Related cases I ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment DE Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed a response in opposition to the motion DE and Plaintiff filed a reply DE The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for review Plaintiffs motion argues that Defendant is fraudulently transferring his assets with the specific intent to defeat any judgment that might be entered against him in this and other similar cases Plaintiff therefore seeks an order enjoining Defendant from fraudulent transfers of his assets appointing a receiver to take charge of Defendants property and requiring Defendant to post a million dollar bond against any potential judgment in this case Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of The relief sought by Plaintiff is injunctive and essentially amounts to a prejudgment writ of attachment Rosen Cascade Intern Inc F.3d th Cir vacating district courts preliminary injunction freezing defendants assets No relief of this character has been thought justified in the long history of equity jurisprudence De Beers Consol Mines Ltd United States U.S Preliminary injunctive relief freezing a defendants assets in order to establish a fund with which to satisfy a potential judgment for money damages is simply not an appropriate exercise of a federal district courts authority Rosen F.3d at Indeed it is entirely settled by a long and unbroken line of Florida cases that in an action at law for money damages there is simply no judicial authority for an order requiring the deposit of the amount in controversy into the registry of the court or indeed for any restraint upon the use of a defendants unrestricted assets prior to the entry of judgment Id at quoting Konover Realty Assoc Ltd Mladen So.2d Fla 3d DCA In Florida an injunction cannot be entered to prevent a party from using or disposing of his assets prior to the conclusion of a legal action Briceno Bryden Investments Ltd So.2d Fla 3d DCA See also SME Racks Inc Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica S.A Fed.Appx th Cir affirming districts courts denial of preliminary injunction to freeze defendants assets Proctor Eason,651 So.2d Fla 2d DCA Defendant not required to deposit funds in court registry prior to final judgment where Plaintiff failed to show unavailability of an adequate remedy at law and the likelihood of irreparable harm two elements essential to entry of an injunction Lawhon Mason So.2d Fla 2d DCA quashing trial court order requiring defendant to Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of give plaintiffs ten days notice prior to the transfer of any assets in excess of Additionally as the Eleventh Circuit explained in Rosen In actions at law plaintiffs in Florida possess an adequate exclusive prejudgment remedy for the sequestration of assets under the attachment statute Fla.Stat.Ann West provided that they can satisfy the enumerated statutory grounds for relief Accordingly the use of injunctive relief as a substitute for the remedy of prejudgment attachment with its attendant safeguards is improper F.3d at emphasis added Here Plaintiff did not move to amend her complaint to allege a claim under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act FUFTA Fla Stat et seq Rather she filed the present motion for injunctive relief Even if she had moved to amend her complaint it is certainly not clear that she could meet the required statutory elements Plaintiffs motion is premised on the contention that Defendant is fraudulently transferring his assets However Plaintiffs motion is entirely devoid of evidence of Defendants alleged fraudulent transfers The Court declines to conclude that Defendant is fraudulently transferring assets based upon the adverse inferences relied upon by Plaintiff Plaintiffs supplemental filing regarding the titles of approximately five of Defendants vehicles is clearly de minimis particularly in light of Plaintiffs repeated characterization of Defendant as a billionaire Based upon the foregoing it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Fraudulent transfer claims under Florida law arise under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act FUFTA Fla Stat et seq FUFTA as set forth in Florida Statute provides the substantive requirements that must be pied to state a valid fraudulent transfer claim Nationsbank N.A Coastal Utilities Inc So.2d Fla Dist Ct App The plaintiff must show that there was a creditor to be defrauded a debtor intending fraud and a conveyance of property which could have been applicable to the payment of the debt due Id Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for leave to Provide Recently-obtained Deposition Testimony and Affidavit DE in is GRANTED Plaintiff Jane Does Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein and to Post a Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment DE in is DENIED DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach Palm Beach County Florida this th day of November Copies to all counsel of record 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 N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O 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
