Filing E-Filed AM 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 NOTICE OF FILING HEARING TRANSCRIPT Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Epstein hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached November hearing transcript FILED PALM BEACH COUNTY FL SHARON BOCK CLERK AM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on December through the Courts e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 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 Jack Scarola Nichole Segal Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart Shipley P.A Burlington Rockenbach P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Courthouse Commons Suite West Palm Beach FL West Railroad A venue mep searcylaw.com West Palm Beach FL jsx searcylaw.com njs FLAppellateLaw.com scarolateam searcylaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards 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 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA Case No JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs I TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE Wednesday November 29th a.m p.m Dixie Highway Room l0C West Palm Beach Florida Donald Hafele Presiding Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid when and where the following proceedings were reported by Sonja Hall Palm Beach Reporting Service Inc Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC APPEARANCES For Plaintiff/Counter Defendant LINK ROCKENBACH P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL By KARA BERARD ROCKENBACH ESQUIRE By SCOTT LINK ESQUIRE For Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART SHIPLEY P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL By JACK SCAROLA ESQUIRE By DAVID VITALE JR ESQUIRE By BRADLEY EDWARDS ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER WEISS P.A Australian Ave South Suite West Palm Beach FL By JACK A GOLDBERGER ESQUIRE For Jeffrey Epstein DARREN INDYKE PLLC Lexington Avenue New York NY By DARREN INDYKE ESQUIRE PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards The two applicable parties being dealt with have a seat please Thank you being Mr Epstein and Mr Edwards and the counterclaim brought by Mr Edwards against Epstein relative to a malicious prosecution claim that has been brought We will confine our arguments to that particular matter And we will keep in mind the following Direct all of your arguments to the bench Please do not speak to each other Please stay away from any pejorative unnecessary comments as it relates in particular to the counter-defendant I will remind you that the Court order that I executed relative to the continuous of the trial on November this year ordered that no replies be provided to the Court absent court order You have violated my order The replies are being ignored I do not expect that to be repeated absent sanctions Is that understood Both sides Ms Rockenbach PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MS ROCKENBACH Yes Your Honor THE COURT Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA Yes Your Honor THE COURT If I need them I will ask for them I have several bankers boxes worth of materials here I dont need anything further unless I request it I am well-advised in the case as you may or may not know I think I announced this earlier for whatever its worth I handled the underlying cases in division AB So I have had a long history in dealing with the matters that surround the instant action Lets start with the counter-defendants revised omnibus motion in limine MR LINK May it please the Court THE COURT Yes sir Thank you MR LINK Thank you Your Honor We know that we have provided you with a forest maybe two forests and we really appreciate your spending the time to go through it If you think back to the motion that we filed to continue and we appreciate Your PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Honor giving us time to understand what this case is about The reason we need this time and we need your time today is because we are not sure what case were trying And we have to understand what case were trying Judge in order to determine what evidence should come in So with Your Honors permission I would like to just show you what Ive put up here so THE COURT Do you have a hard copy of your PowerPoint MR LINK Yes sir THE COURT If I may have it MS ROCKENBACH May I approach Your Honor I shared this with Mr Scarola last evening THE COURT Thanks MR LINK Your Honor before we get to the blowup and the screen I would like to just take a minute and talk to you about what we think the evidentiary issues we have raised in our motion that have to be resolved The first is and I know Your Honor PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC know you have told us this over and over you know the elements of malicious prosecution and that you know them well and theyre well-settled But when you read the papers you will see there is a disagreement about what those elements are And so I just want to take a moment to go through them and find out what we really need to understand before we can try this case to a jury is this what facts are in dispute that a jury has to decide Thats our struggle So Your Honor the malicious prosecution element one the commencement of a proceeding that is not an issue in this case Element two Was it filed by the present defendant the counter-defendant Not an issue in this case Item three The bona fide termination in favor of the plaintiff That is an issue in this case That takes me to item two for one moment on my board Your Honor which is burden of proof The counter-plaintiffs PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC suggest in their papers that once they prove the underlying claims by Mr Edwards three plaintiffs that were settled in that they have met enough to go forward and skip by the bona fide termination The reason the bona fide termination is important is that that is the one area in the burden of proof shifts to us as the one area that THE COURT If Im not mistaken are we talking about bona fide termination of the Epstein action brought by Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards MR LINK Yes THE COURT So why are we dealing with the underlying claims of the bona fide termination issue MR LINK I dont know why we are except that is part of the papers that we are dealing with THE COURT They are part of the papers as I understand it so as to establish a nexus between the reason why Mr Epstein brought this claim in the first place against Rothstein and Edwards and to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC try to determine the rationale that Mr Epstein had to bring this case in the first place which is a question that the jury is going to have which is a question that the Court has and what was the reason behind bringing this case Was it one of vengeance Was it one of hatred Was it one of MR LINK Malicious THE COURT Malicious Let me get to the point Was it one of feeling that he was taking that the part of those whose investments were had by Rothstein as a result of that massive Ponzi scheme as he indicates in his deposition he felt that these people were taken advantage of as a result of Rothsteins misdeeds I dont know what the reason was and Im sure the jury is going to ask what the reasons were But there is going to be some introduction albeit it tempered clearly tempered MR LINK Yes sir I THE COURT And Ms Rockenbach believe she was the signatory to the motion acknowledges that some of that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC information is going to be in There is no way were going to be able to sanitize the case to that extent MR LINK We wouldnt ask the Court to do that THE COURT So thats what Im trying to understand Why are we going there when it comes to bona fide termination MR LINK The reason is that I want to make sure that we are all on the same page about whose burden of proof in the case because that will make a difference about the evidence that needs to come in THE COURT I dont think there is any issue I dont believe Mr Scarola is taking issue that initially the burden of proof is with the counter-plaintiff Edwards as to the determination or the showing that there was a bona fide termination of the case in his clients favor this case meaning Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards and specifically Rothstein versus Edwards Is that fair Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA Its fair Your Honor that we acknowledge that we have the burden PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC of proof with regard to every element It is also our position that the issue as to whether the underlying claim was bona fiably terminated in favor of Bradley Edwards is an issue of law for the Court There are no disputed Mr Edwards is present yes There are no disputed issues of fact with regard to what happened and therefore the Court will need to make the legal determination as to whether that constitutes a bona fide termination And we believe that that is an issue that has been resolved through the appellate process as well THE COURT Up to the point where theres a belief that the issue has been resolved through the appellate process as well I agree with Mr Scarolas position At this point in my view ultimately it becomes potentially a legal issue If the facts are clear and theres no factual dispute then it becomes purely a legal decision as to whether or not theres been bona fide termination MR LINK We agree percent Judge PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC percent THE COURT I dont want to deviate MR LINK I know So Im going to go to the next piece which is the key which is the absence of probable cause And the absence of probable cause focuses here the absence of probable cause and this is what Your Honor was just talking about focuses here December 7th Thats when Mr Epstein brought his claim against Rothstein Mr Rothsteins firm and Mr Edwards THE COURT Did he bring it against Rothsteins firm I only have Rothstein individually MR SCAROLA Rothstein individually and Bradley Edwards individually MR LINK My apologies THE COURT That statement is retracked Its Rothstein individually and Edwards individually Mr Scarola concurred and Mr Link has now concurred MR SCAROLA And L.M which I think is of some significance also THE COURT Was she brought in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC originally MR SCAROLA Yes MR LINK She was Judge Here is our view of what we have to do when we look at the evidence we are going to show you the exhibit list the testimony to come in is to focus on what the jury is going to have to decide Again Im not sure what the facts are in dispute but its here The only information that makes a difference is what Epstein what Epstein looked at what he considered the inferences he drew from that information and whether when you take the totality of that information Your Honor he had a reasonable basis to bring a civil proceeding against Mr Edwards I dont think there is any dispute I have read the Courts transcript where the Court has said the case against Mr Rothstein I understand that I dont think anybody is disputing that The question is was there sufficient THE COURT Hold on Hold on a minute Lets not take my comments out of context PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Whether or not there was ever any issues that Mr Epstein had viably against either Rothstein Edwards or L.M are still as far as the Court is concerned unanswered MR LINK Remember we have a default against Mr Rothstein THE COURT Thats a different issue MR LINK I understand your point Judge THE COURT I dont want my comments to be taken out of context MR LINK Fair enough THE COURT A default is different than a court indicating some type of understanding as to Mr Epsteins cause of action against Rothstein in this particular case Because as I said the jury will question and the Court continues to question why Mr Epstein brought this case in the first place MR LINK Fair enough Thank you for the clarification THE COURT And the reason why thats important is because the counter-plaintiff has argued that circumstantially and PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC based upon in large part invocation of the Fifth Amendment by Mr Epstein they are going to need to prove that or disprove that potentially through the Fifth Amendment issues that we are going to be discussing Because while Mr Epstein may have his own motivation circumstantially it is going to be up to the plaintiff to prove that motivation was not in fact in good faith And Im using good faith not as a term not as a legal term but more of a term of art MR LINK I understand that THE COURT So it brings us to the point that we need to get to So I am with you so far in terms of where youre going And youre leading me through this I appreciate it very much But it does get us now to this really critical issue of well again theres this huge question thats being asked by going to be asked by the finder of fact and the trier of the law and that is how does the counter-plaintiff prove its case when Mr Epstein has answered selected questions PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC I was I am now paraphrasing Mr Epsteins answers in large part I found out that Rothstein was factoring these cases I found out that these investors were being taken advantage of Taken advantage of through the forging of an order forging of an order that purported to have the signature of Judge Marra a tremendously well-respected jurist in this community now taken senior status I meaning Mr Epstein was not only concerned about Rothstein doing what he did but also I had suspicions that Mr Edwards was involved in this process because there were some articles that discussed the query could Rothstein have done this alone and implicated at least the cases not to my knowledge Mr Edwards but the cases that Mr Edwards was serving as lead counsel Some before this particular court in division AB back in and that period of time perhaps just around that period of time So theres going to be a large question in the trier-of-facts mind and remains in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC the Courts mind How was Mr Epstein damaged by what transpired from the standpoint of Rothstein or what may have transpired from his own mind as it relates to Mr Edwards Thats going to be a huge question and remains a huge question What was Epstein doing at that time meaning why did he file this lawsuit What was his damages Why was he even doing this in the first place Thats going to create an issue And the reason I bring it up is solely to get into the argument thats going to be raised by the counter-plaintiff Edwards And that is how do we prove this where Epstein chooses to answer only certain questions regarding his motivation i.e malice and probable cause But it doesnt answer questions germane to his mindset that okay there were these factored cases by Rothstein Hes paying a severe price for what he did The millionaire investors who got involved in this Ponzi scheme have clearly been damaged and restitution has been paid PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC to my understanding to the extent that those assets of Rothsteins and those who were otherwise implicated paid what they paid But how is Mr Epstein damaged and what was his motivation other than altruism other than the questions that were asked by Mr Scarola which he didnt answer that could have been referencing a myriad of things vengeance anger hostility But they have that ability my respectful view in reading these materials to be able to raise those issues and perhaps through the Fifth Amendment Avenue MR LINK Maybe Your Honor THE COURT We need to concentrate on that And we need to not only look at what Im trying to say is through Ms Rockenbachs excellent written presentation MR LINK I helped a little bit Judge THE COURT Actually Mr Link signed it in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK There you I took credit for it all Your Honor THE COURT My apologies MR LINK It was a little bit of me THE COURT We get in trouble when we assume Irrespective of that Mr Link signed it So you can tell Im more concentrated on the body of work than who necessarily executed it But what I am trying to say is what I believe respectfully is being done here is its a one-sided argument Now I agree that you have to zealously represent your client and take his side and I have no problem with that But what Im also suggesting is at the same time there has to be some consideration and some concession that they have a viable I wont say viable claim but they have viable arguments to support what they are trying to accomplish And the means to do that is largely hamstrung by Mr Epsteins refusal to answer questions Go ahead MR LINK Thank you sir PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Those are exactly the issues we have And theres one thing Your Honor I think that I would ask you to consider This is very important And I will tell you that if you walk through these elements this element right here this is the key the absence of probable cause does not take into consideration anybodys motive their anger their malice their state of mind or anything else other than other than and we will get to malicious you are dead-on but probable cause is an objective standard If the facts are not in dispute its an objective standard to be determined by this Court Thats what the Florida Supreme Court has told us So whats important whats important is the counter-plaintiff doesnt challenge that this information was available They dont challenge that the information when read it says Rothstein was involved in a Ponzi scheme It says Mr Epsteins three cases were being used to lure investors and information about them was fabricated PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC So theres not a dispute about that The question is this The question is did Mr Epstein have some reason to doubt or not believe the information he was reading Because even though probable cause Your Honor is an objective standard if I know what Im reading is false then I havent really in good faith relied on it But it doesnt matter The case law says you cannot establish probable cause or the lack of it by the most actual malice known to man I can hate this gentleman I can want to bury this gentleman I can want to run him out of business But if I have objective probable cause THE COURT And you are saying as a matter of law you are suggesting to me that newspaper articles which are the bulk of the reliance that Mr Epstein is suggesting is sufficient to establish probable cause MR LINK Yes sir I am THE COURT We are really not there yet because PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK I know were not THE COURT this isnt a motion for summary judgment MR LINK Its not But I wanted to answer the Courts question I think its really important Judge as we go forward that we differentiate the element of probable cause and the element of malice Because you are exactly right When you get to item five malice whats his intent to hurt Mr Edwards That is absolutely relevant for the jurys determination No question Okay It is But it is not relevant to whether there was a lack of probable cause And thats a balance that we have here because THE COURT Whats not relevant in the absence of probable cause Are you talking about malice MR LINK Malice Intent We will show you cases Your Honor where it says if you have probable cause and you have malice theres no claim for malicious prosecution You only look at malice once youve established probable cause You cant use PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC malice to establish probable cause You can on the other hand use probable cause to establish malice THE COURT I understand MR LINK That makes sense THE COURT I understand you completely MR LINK The reason thats important is because if you combine if you say Whats in his mind How is he trying to hurt this guy When hes reviewing the Razorback complaint the U.S Attorneys statement and the newspapers articles that are out there then you are combining malice and probable cause So thats what we have to avoid Its really critical and here is why By the way I want for the Court to know I really appreciate the hard work that Mr Edwards team has put in They did a lot of writing We did a lot of writing We have crystalized the issues for this Courts determination So one of the things that Mr Edwards tells us in his response to our motion in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC limine he wants to tell us how hes going to try this case And here is what he says Edwards starts by proving the truth of the claims he brought on behalf of his three clients That evidence Your Honor if this case hadnt settled would absolutely have been relevant to that trial without a question Every I shouldnt say every many of the questions that were asked of Mr Epstein that he took the Fifth to very well could have been relevant to this lawsuit okay But the truth of the allegations that they were making has nothing to do with what Mr Epstein reviewed in before he brought the suit Theres nothing thats in their mind or that happened to them that can have influenced Mr Epstein when he was reading the material THE COURT So what youre suggesting though Mr Link is that there could never be a successful plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case MR LINK No sir Im not suggesting PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that at all I will give you an example What if this lawsuit was filed and there were two articles that existed that said that Mr Edwards had nothing to do with the Ponzi scheme And Mr Epstein in looking at the information that was available took that information or he knew Mr Edwards wasnt involved at all in any way and Im not telling you that Mr Edwards was I am saying based on the information at that time THE COURT Where was that information by the way that suggests Mr Edwards had involvement MR LINK The information that suggests that he had involvement is this MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor may I approach I have a copy that might be better for the Court I shared this with Mr Scarola yesterday MR LINK Your Honor asked a great question It is without a doubt nothing in the press or the U.S Attorneys office or anywhere else that comes out before Mr Rothstein goes down that connects PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC directly Mr Edwards to the Ponzi scheme It does not So what we have to then look at is this information So you have as your backdrop put yourself in Mr Epsteins shoes for a minute You have as a backdrop your reading that the three cases that you have are being used to solicit investors and youre being told that you have already offered a million settlement which was untrue That youve already agreed to pay million which was untrue That there were other claimants out there at the Rothstein firm which were untrue And you read all of that and then you start thinking about whats happened in the litigation against you In the litigation against you you start to see things that are different from when Mr Edwards was a sole practitioner THE COURT Freeze that phrase for a moment MR LINK Yes sir THE COURT When you think about the litigation that was brought against you PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC when you are saying what Mr Edwards brought against Mr Epstein correct MR LINK Yes sir THE COURT Very well MR LINK Yes sir Thats what Im talking about THE COURT I want to make sure that that is what youre saying MR LINK Were on the same page Edwards clients versus Mr Epstein And you look at the time period that Mr Edwards is at Rothsteins this is really the question I think its a legal question The question is was there sufficient smoke for you to think there could be fire Was there sufficient information that you could draw a reasonable inference from that would allow you to bring a civil claim And here is what we see We see many different things that happened So for example all of a sudden you have Mr Edwards and his team saying they want to depose Donald Trump Bill Clinton And there wasnt any testimony from the three folks that Mr Edwards represented PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that they had any contact with Mr Clinton or Mr Trump or any of the other folks that they said they wanted to depose The three folks that Mr Edwards represented never said they were on one of Mr Epsteins planes yet they spent hours deposing Mr Epsteins pilot and didnt ask a single question about Mr Edwards clients He had a state court case filed on behalf of L.M He then files a 234-page federal court complaint with 100-and-some counts that he never serves He then files a motion for fraudulent transfer in the federal case saying Mr Epstein is fraudulently transferring assets and lists in there all these assets he has And Judge Marra denies it and says this was brought without any evidence whatsoever So if you look at these things that happened and you now have them in the context of wait a minute I just read that Rothstein was telling folks that these cases were worth million and Mr Epstein has PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC already offered million And thats not enough We are going to get more If you are Mr Epstein you start thinking Well was all of this stuff being done to generate information to show the investors in the Ponzi scheme Then we know that the flight logs that came from the pilots that had nothing to do with the three plaintiffs that Mr Edwards used were used by Rothstein to show investors THE COURT But couldnt that same information Mr Link serve the counter-plaintiff as well as it might serve Mr Epstein which creates a potentially classic jury question And that is that all of these things that were done the inconveniencing of his pilots the inconveniencing of his high-level friends the implications of these high-level friends all of these things that were done to anger Mr Epstein at or around the time if my memory serves when these cases were being settled doesnt that serve them just as well to create an issue of probable cause as it does your client to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC say Well all of these things were done And it then gets us back to what I earlier asked and that is even if thats taken as true even if Rothstein was pumping these cases up and claiming to these investors that it was then publicly known through primarily the press media was swarming as they should have been over this absolute criminal act the likes of which from an economic standpoint from a private individual perhaps has still never been seen before other than Mr Madoff in New York But the point Im trying to make is it still gets me back to that same question Yeah Mr Epstein may have been angry he may have been concerned about his friends the high-level people that he associated with and how this could drag him down as well as them Certainly a bona fide concern perhaps But then it gets to the question yeah with all of that it still gets me to my original question and what the jury is going to be asking more importantly how was PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Epstein damaged as a result of this activity MR LINK May I answer that question But then I have to weave back because you gave me something I have got to talk about THE COURT Sure MR LINK The damage that he felt now lets keep in mind what case were trying today or will be trying which is whether there was probable cause to go forward THE COURT Against Mr Edwards MR LINK Against Mr Edwards We are not trying the case against Mr Edwards We dont have to prove who would have won that case So Im going to get back to that in a sec What he thought his damages were at the time his real dollar damages is that he was spending money paying lawyers to defend what was happening during this Rothstein period And so if you connect the dots and say okay you said it better than I did Judge Rothstein is doing these criminal activities which included using my name PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC three legitimate lawsuits THE COURT Who is my MR LINK Mr Epstein THE COURT Okay MR LINK I keep trying to make you Mr Epstein for my example Its the only way it works for me If youre Mr Epstein and you see Judge you see whats in the press and how your I want to make this clear We have never challenged when Mr Edwards filed them that he didnt have a good faith legitimate basis to do so back in Thats not what this case is about But in if youre Mr Epstein and you see all of this information and you look at whats happening here and you say Have I spent legal fees paid my lawyers in order to have to defend activity that was really designed not to benefit the three plaintiffs but to let Rothstein take it and show investors And we know as a matter of fact Judge that Rothstein did it He used bankers boxes from the Epstein cases He PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC used flight manifests from the Epstein cases So he actually used the information that was provided to him by Mr Edwards to show investors This is going to answer your question This is key I think I remember your question This is key if I remember your question You said what if Mr Edwards had a legitimate purpose I believe Mr Edwards can get on the stand and persuade you Judge he had a reasonable basis for doing everything he did THE COURT I didnt ask that question MR LINK Well you said what if he had a legitimate basis What he was doing was trying to benefit the three folks THE COURT No What I said was couldnt that information that you just indicated to me that forms the basis for Mr Epstein allegedly bringing this suit could that not be could that not be utilized by Mr Edwards to submit to the fact that submit the fact that the reason why Epstein brought this suit in the first place was one of trying to get back at PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Edwards for inconveniencing his friends for dragging those friends high-level friends into the process for inconveniencing his pilots All of these things that I brought out That was the point that I made MR LINK What element of the claim is that for What element Thats malice Its not probable cause What Mr Edwards thought what he did why he did it has nothing to do with probable cause It may have Your Honor a lot to do with malice THE COURT I think it has a great deal to do with probable cause quite frankly I think its a mixed bag so to speak when you get to probable cause and malice I agree with you that probable cause has to be proven before malice But I think that there are certainly in a case like this which is an extremely unusual and complex matter that there are lead-overs if you will as it relates to probable cause and the malice elements And I dont think it can be disputed here This is not like the simple cases that we read in Florida Jurisprudence that deal with malicious PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC prosecution the more simple concrete-type of cases that sets one plaintiff against one defendant This is different And I think that the issue of malice and probable cause are going to be somewhat congealed and somewhat of a lead-over from probable cause to malice Not vice versa I understand the parameters legally in that regard MR LINK I agree with everything you just said except without incurring the wrath of the Court I have to dispute the first part you said because I dont believe Your Honor that the law is whats in Mr Edwards mind whats in Mr Epsteins mind about his reasons for bringing the case have anything to do with probable cause I think they have everything to do with a malice And the law is very clear You cant use malice to demonstrate probable cause So if you cant use malice what difference does it make how much Mr Epstein may have hated Mr Edwards and wanted to do him harm MR SCAROLA I thought that you were PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC pausing and I wanted to raise a procedural question If you are pausing MR LINK No problem I never know when Im pausing either MR SCAROLA I have the same problem Your Honor Im a little bit confused about the direction that that argument is taking because I thought we were arguing a motion in limine to exclude evidence And once theres a concession that the evidence is relevant to malice even if we accept and I dont that its not relevant to probable cause its relevant and it comes in So I suggest that since we have had an on-the-record concession of the relevance of the evidence that part of the argument is over THE COURT Well I think Mr Link I am giving him latitude because I interrupted him to ask these questions that really needed to be answered from my standpoint And as I look at these cases that are going to trial I also try to put myself not in either parties shoes but PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC certainly in juries shoes when it comes to questions that theyre going to have and that really needs to be answered because it helps me to narrow the issues as well So I appreciate your courtesies in that respect MR LINK My pleasure Your Honor THE COURT Lets go ahead and if we could lets get to the core issues that were dealing with today and see where we are because Mr Scarola also makes a good point I mean a lot of this material that seems to be a matter of your motion when it comes to excluding this testimony or this evidence its essentially been conceded that most of this evidence is going to be relevant MR LINK I didnt say that I want to be very clear I did not say that the evidence that he wants to submit or the questions he asked or the exhibits that he listed should come in on malice What I said to the court is that Mr Epsteins state of mind and how much he would have disliked Mr Edwards or wanted to hurt him would be relevant to malice Thats very PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC different than asking the question about do you have a preference for minor children THE COURT So if we can move now to issues of evidence that is being sought to be limited in terms of its introduction to the jury MR LINK Yes Your Honor My partner Ms Rockenbach will handle that And Your Honor just so the Courts aware Ms Rockenbach has a professionalism meeting at Mr Scarolas office that starts at noon Do you mind breaking at THE COURT Thats fine I have a court luncheon as well with my colleagues down in the judicial dining room at noon so thats not a problem MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor I would like to take the first issue in the omnibus revised omnibus motion in limine But before we talk about Fifth Amendment I just want cite one case to Your Honor before we leave this arena of probable cause When I was reviewing the case law in preparation for this hearing I chuckled to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC think that the Florida Supreme Court in called this an ancient action malicious prosecution But it is that very case that answers a point that Your Honor was just discussing Im talking about the Tatum Brothers case And it says in Tatum Brothers THE COURT Do you have a tab number for me MS ROCKENBACH The tab number is I dont know that actually I might be able to get that THE COURT If its in your binder I can probably find it You did a good job with your MS ROCKENBACH The index THE COURT index Yeah I dont have a Tatum Brothers by that first name MS ROCKENBACH I apologize Your Honor Its at Florida and its published in The court said it is well established that want of probable cause cannot be inferred from malice however great such malice may be even the most express malice PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC So before we leave that arena that case back in said that you cant go backwards You cant find malice then infer probable cause THE COURT I understand I am just making a point that in this set of unusual facts its not necessarily a clear-cut distinction that can be drawn But again sometimes facts will create these types of issues and they will be different than the set of facts But go ahead MS ROCKENBACH This is true So Your Honor the first issue about the Fifth Amendment I want to be clear that with regard to probable cause my client has an original complaint that was filed against Mr Edwards in December of He obviously didnt raise any Fifth Amendment with regard to any allegations that he filed in public court He also filed two affidavits Did not raise any Fifth Amendments with regard to the statements and facts that he alleged in those affidavits one in and then the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC most recent Theres a pending motion to strike the set for these pending motion hearings There was never any type of attack on the affidavit and they are substantially the same The third issue about substantive testimony that my client gave that goes to the probable cause issue were the two depositions in which Mr Scarola deposed Mr Epstein And that first one was March and its in the court file it was approximately three hours And its important Your Honor just if the Court would indulge me to read a few answers because the point here is I should have started with this If I may use the easel So really there were two categories of questions that were asked of my client by Mr Scarola Some pertain to Fifth Amendment which he raised and some pertain to the malicious prosecution action My client substantively answered in that March deposition under the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC column of malicious prosecution page Mr Scarola asked Your complaint in this action hes referring to the malicious prosecution action alleges that L.M made claims for damages out of proportion to alleged damages What does that mean It means what it says Mr Scarola I dont understand it Explain it to me Mr Epstein substantively answered questions related to his probable cause for instituting the civil proceeding of malicious prosecution when I believe that as part of the scheme to defraud investors in South Florida out of millions of dollars claims of outrageous sums of money were made on behalf of alleged victims across the board and the only way in fact Scott Rothstein sits in jail And what I have read in the paper claims that I settled cases for million which is totally not true She has made claims of serious sums of money which is outrageous He answers the questions Have you settled claims Yes I have PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Page of the same deposition My client substantively answers the probable cause question for why he brought and Your Honor asked the question why did Mr Epstein file this malicious prosecution action He told Mr Scarola back in on page Mr Scarola said Did Brad Edwards do anything that he shouldnt have done that forms the basis of your lawsuit against him Yes many things List them for me please He has gone to the media out of I believe an attempt to gin up these allegations He has contacted the media He has used the media for his own purposes He has brought discovery He has engaged in discovery proceedings that bear no relationship to any case filed against me by any of his clients His firm which he is the partner of has been accused of forging a federal judges signature Those are but two just two that I have taken and the Court has indulged me in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC reading substantive answers THE COURT Believe me I have read these over and over again Theyre segregated in various motions that I have been privy to and I also have read the transcript in full relative to Mr Epsteins questions The point that I tried to make with Mr Link was that number one if as a court as a system of jurisprudence we simply rely upon the contentions of the now defendant in a malicious prosecution claim as to probable cause then there would really be essentially there would be no malicious prosecution claim that would be brought Secondly I understand that it is the plaintiffs burden of proof Now if its a pure legal question the Court will deal with that accordingly But at least for now we understand that its the plaintiffs burden to prove as to probable cause The point that I made and tried to make with Mr Link was if a defendant in a malicious prosecution claim and I think some of these cases speak essentially to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that issue takes the Fifth Amendment in similar types of cases then the plaintiffs position will never really be made known unless theres an introduction to some degree of the fact that to certain questions now graphic sexual questions the likelihood is I am not going to allow those into evidence MS ROCKENBACH Understood THE COURT I havent heard from Mr Scarola so I dont want to suggest that I am prejudging anything But there is a bar that we need to respect as it relates to the difference between relevant evidence and a I get it But at the same time I think as the judge as opposed to an advocate and taking into consideration both sides positions I have to recognize that there is a definitive and direct correlation between the invocation of Fifth Amendment rights as to issues that would go to proof of probable cause relating to the plaintiffs claim and not simply take Mr Edwards sic contentions at face value Because in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC circumstances such as this one where the Fifth Amendment has been discussed the vast majority of cases has Did I misstate something MR SCAROLA Yes sir You said and in Mr Edwards You meant Epstein Im sure So the record is clear I thought it appropriate to correct that THE COURT We have all made those mistakes I knew it was going to happen I apologize for it I caught myself once before I apologize Madam Court Reporter could you just read back where I started with questioning Mr Rockenbach please Thereupon the requested portion of the record was read back by the reporter as above duly recorded THE COURT With the vast majority of cases that have dealt with this tension the allowance on a limited basis of the invocation of the Fifth Amendment makes perfect sense because logically it is a way for the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution claim Edwards to be able PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC to prove the case at least prove probable cause It makes sense And if I can divine common sense from these cases then I feel I have made some reasonably decent strides But it makes sense I dont know if you can really argue with that logic MS ROCKENBACH I dont Your Honor Theres a caveat We agree with the Court and we would rely on two cases for this point because we are talking about the reason I drew that line for Fifth Amendment and malicious prosecution is were talking about whether Mr Edwards can in this malicious prosecution case read questions to the jury that my client took the Fifth Amendment to and draw a negative inference therefrom The US Supreme Court in Baxter thats the case thats the Fifth Amendment case it says Its key that theres independent evidence existing of the fact to which the parties refuse to answer Thats one building block for this issue The second building block is a PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments What does Frazier tell us Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say you have to have independent evidence in order to use this Fifth Amendment adverse inference but Frazier says that this adverse inference is limited against parties when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them Probative evidence offered against them We looked at those three rings earlier This lawsuit here is not the ring involving I am going to say them all wrong E.W L.M and Jane Doe Its not This is the malicious prosecution ring and suit So the reason I read some excerpts from Mr Epsteins deposition to Your Honor is to show that he didnt take the Fifth Amendment on issues relevant to why he filed the malicious why he filed his civil proceeding the underlying suit for this malicious prosecution case against Mr Edwards He substantively answer those PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC questions What he didnt answer were questions that would fall in the Fifth Amendment column that would be relevant in those three claimants lawsuits or claims or criminal action In that substantive three-hour deposition taken of my client he was asked How many children have you sexually abused Have you ever sexually abused children Have you ever socialized with and then he was asked about public figures the governor of New Mexico On how many occasions did you solicit prostitution How many prostitutes do you contend you solicited How many minors have you procured for prostitution These are questions How many times did you engage in oral sex with females under age These have no relevance to the malicious action And those are the very questions that we are asking Your Honor to not only preclude from being admitted to into evidence or any reference in the malicious prosecution but also to preclude PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Edwards from using the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when those very questions have A no probative value in this lawsuit no probative evidence whatsoever and there is no independent evidence THE COURT I knew you all worked very hard in having produced these materials and you all got involved somewhat late in the game but what I didnt get is a definitive list of questions and answers that are sought to be excluded Globally as I indicated and thus far my inclination is not to allow those types of questions to be asked of Mr Epstein or to be utilized as to be published to the jury However questions that deal with the fact that suits were brought against Mr Epstein by at least the three people that were brought other suits that were brought against Mr Epstein either by minors or by women of age that were actually filed or claims that were made and were paid by Mr Epstein those types of questions I PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC believe are going to be of probative value which is essentially relevance defined as tending to prove or disprove a material fact Whats the material fact You can answer it or I will answer it MS ROCKENBACH I have a question for Your Honor But go ahead THE COURT What I would perceive to being the probative issue or the relevance gets to why Mr Epstein brought this claim in the first place A basic question as I mentioned before that the jury is going to have and the Court has and for them to be hamstrung from asking those questions flies in the face as far as Im concerned of the majority of the cases that I have read that touch on these types of cases They may not be a specific malicious prosecution case but the logic still is maintained You see It can be differentiated some of these graphic questions that Im not going to repeat here but are a matter of public record and are in the materials far more graphic than what you have given us as PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC exemplars and I respect the fact that you didnt need to bring those into the record today But what I am saying is that it goes back into the logic that I described earlier MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor mentioned two categories THE COURT And Im not excuse me for a moment I apologize for that But Im not trying to be definitive as far as the categories that are going to be or not be allowed What Im trying to give you is some type of global perspective because as I said before unfortunately whether its time or whatever it may have been the questions to my knowledge have not been segregated out So as to go through on a question-by-question basis yes or no That may have to be done at a later time But what Im trying to do is indicate to you that from a jury perspective they are going to need to know what fueled potentially Mr Epstein Was it what he says or at least from a circumstantial PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC standpoint and based upon his refusal to answer questions germane to those three pseudonym the pseudonyms used by those plaintiffs and others who have brought claims I dont think those three cases to my recollection were the only three cases that were brought maybe by Mr Edwards MS ROCKENBACH They were the only ones brought by Mr Edwards And that leads me to the point I was going to jump back with Your Honor and say you identified two categories and you said its potentially relevant and probative to discuss those three that were the three lawsuits and others THE COURT Are you going to tell me that he part of Mr Epstein did not bring any cases against any of the other lawyers Is that what youre going to suggest MS ROCKENBACH Number one that is true and correct and accurate He did not And those other cases any other claims that were not being represented by PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Edwards they have no relevance to Mr Epsteins lawsuit that he brought in December of THE COURT You can argue that I have no problem with that argument MS ROCKENBACH But Your Honor as youve recognized Your Honor is the gatekeeper And introducing evidence that has absolutely no probative value and no relevance would be very harmful inflammatory and clearly prejudice my client from THE COURT I understand the point You can proceed MS ROCKENBACH Thank you Your Honor MR LINK Your Honor can I offer a suggestion based on what I have heard THE COURT Any objection Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA No sir THE COURT Yes sir MR LINK Your Honor raises a good point which is without the specific questions in front of you it makes it more difficult And I do apologize Youre right We PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC scrambled up until oclock the night before Thanksgiving THE COURT Thats why I wasnt criticizing anybody for not having MR LINK And we didnt take it that way Judge But I do think it would be helpful for the Court and for the parties if we go through the questions and the answers theres not that many of them frankly and have the Court make a ruling because without doing it question by question from the depositions you are giving this general guidance but it doesnt help us get ready for the jury trial Your Honor THE COURT I agree I agree And I have no problem with that We have set aside several days in order to deal with that But we can talk about the general theory of the utilization of the Fifth Amendment and how that is going to be presented to the jury So lets go on and proceed further please Thank you Mr Link PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK Thank you Judge MS ROCKENBACH Thank you Your Honor I have provided Your Honor with the law that really is central and core to your gatekeeping function under and And the point is that theres no probative evidence These Fifth Amendment questions that were asked of my client THE COURT No probative value MS ROCKENBACH No probative value And the Frazier the Fourth DCA says that even that adverse inference against parties when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them If my client had taken the Fifth Amendment when Mr Scarola asked a question about what did Mr Edwards do to wrong you How did he abuse his license to practice law and my client said Fifth Amendment absolutely that is a question that would not only get read it would get the adverse inference But the questions that were asked of my client have zero probative value and are not anything related to the issues of probable PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC cause in this action So I might suggest that since Mr Scarola is the proponent of those questions and that evidence that he would identify questions that he wants to present to which my client pled the Fifth Before I stop speaking though just one other point Mr Edwards wants to use my clients invocation of the Fifth Amendment as a gag order on the column of malicious prosecution answers meaning in one of his motions its to strike the affidavit And to be clear to the court we are not submitting an affidavit as testimony at trial We wouldnt do that But it is a blueprint for what my client would testify to as is the complaint that my client filed against Mr Edwards Those were the allegations and the facts and circumstances which goes to probable cause that Mr Epstein relied on in December of So Mr Edwards is moving to strike the affidavit and based on the Fifth Amendment says that my client cant PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC use it sword and shield My client is not using Fifth Amendment as sword and shield whatsoever In the example I gave Your Honor that would be a sword and shield if my client refused to answer the question of why he filed the original proceeding against Mr Edwards in December of why he instituted that action Fifth Amendment that would be a sword and shield and they could get an adverse inference So part of my omnibus revised omnibus motion in limine and the response to I think Mr Edwards motion to strike my clients affidavit implicates the Fifth Amendment THE COURT We will take up with the striking of the affidavit separately MS ROCKENBACH Okay THE COURT I dont think MR SCAROLA That issue is moot The affidavit is not going to come into evidence obviously It was moved to be stricken as support for a motion that has already been denied So I dont know why PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC were talking about striking the affidavit MS ROCKENBACH Good Then it seems that its moot by Mr Edwards and we will move on But we wanted to make sure that that testimony thats provided in the affidavit should not be under some type of gag order My client should be able to testify as to what why he had probable cause THE COURT My position before Mr Scarola mentioned its mootness was that as long as the information thats set forth in the affidavit which by the way and its not uncommon as brilliant as both sides are I didnt have a copy of the affidavit MS ROCKENBACH I apologize to the Court for that THE COURT Its okay While it may have been attached somewhere one other thing I dont know why Mr Scarola from your office I didnt receive any binder or anything else I had to last night copy the replies and the responses to take home with me PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR SCAROLA We work in a binder-free zone Your Honor THE COURT Thats fine But I do require because most as last night most of my preparation is done at home And Im so tired of looking at computers that its much easier for me to have the hard copies I know others are much more computer savvy when it comes to those kinds of things But I just find it more comfortable to be able to have something in my hand and read it If you can kindly go ahead and forward them to me so last night getting the responses and having my JA I commend her for staying as late as she did last night and getting all of that material and helping getting it all marshaled Again I just wanted to gently remind you folks that I may do things differently than others in the sense that I still like to have hard copies and not to sit there in front of a computer later in the evening Anyway Sorry I got off on that tangent PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Did you want to add anything else MS ROCKENBACH Yes Your Honor As part of that omnibus motion in limine we somewhat moved on from the Fifth Amendment questions and answers because I think Mr Scarola may want to tee up for the Court what precise questions that he is seeking to admit and introduce into evidence so that Your Honor can rule on each one Perhaps we can take that up after lunch Im not sure if that works THE COURT I would like to hear some of Mr Scarolas arguments now I would like to get into the global issue of the Fifth Amendment as well as parameters that he believes are appropriate as it concerns the nature of the questions that are going to be sought to be introduced and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment and where we stand currently Because if Im understanding correctly because of the pendency of that federal lawsuit essentially Mr Epstein is going to be taking the same position now as he has in the past PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MS ROCKENBACH With regard to the Fifth Amendment THE COURT Yes maam MS ROCKENBACH Yes Your Honor Thats correct I want to make sure But not with regard to any probable cause questions like those that were asked in his depositions to which he did not invoke the Fifth Amendment They were relevant questions to this action He will not be invoking the Fifth as to those questions But yes consistent with the questions that were asked of him in his deposition to which he invoked the Fifth he will be doing that again THE COURT And youre not at this point because I know that the counter-plaintiff Edwards was concerned about retracting any of his Fifth Amendment invocations That is not planned at this juncture MS ROCKENBACH Thats correct Your Honor THE COURT So that obviates then the need for Mr Scarola to redepose PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Epstein MS ROCKENBACH Correct THE COURT Mr Scarola thank you for your patience You may proceed sir Thank you Ms Rockenbach and Mr Link for your written and oral presentations MR SCAROLA Thank you very much Your Honor If you dont mind Im going to stand at the podium that says Plaintiff Your Honor there is a very fundamental disagreement between present counsel for Mr Epstein and Mr Edwards You heard Mr Link say and I think I took down the quote exactly we have never challenged that these three cases were legitimate cases Well I can understand why it is that at this point in the litigation Mr Link wishes that they had never challenged that these three cases were legitimate cases But the fact of the matter is that Bradley Edwards was sued for ginning up fabricating constructing those three cases and others as a knowing participant in Floridas largest ever Ponzi scheme that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC is there were two clearly identifiable allegations of wrongdoing contained within the complaint filed by Bradley Edwards He was alleged to have fabricated these cases And it was alleged that the reason why he fabricated the cases was as a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme I can provide the court and I will do that with a copy of the complaint that was filed in this action Weve highlighted various allegations in that complaint Your Honor that specifically include the assertions that Bradley Edwards was involved in manufacturing fabricating ginning up these claims In paragraph seven it is alleged that L.M was an essential participant in the scheme referenced in this complaint by among other things substantially changing prior written sworn testimony so as to assist the defendants plural in promoting their fraudulent scheme for the promise of a multi-million dollar recovery relevant to civil actions defined below involving Epstein which was completely out of PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC proportion to her alleged damages If we go to paragraph By using the civil actions against Epstein as bait and fabricating settlements regarding same Rothstein and others were able to lure investors into Rothsteins lair and bilked them of millions of dollars which in turn were used to fund the litigation against Epstein for the sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme The sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme These werent legitimate claims They were being used solely to fund the Ponzi scheme according to the allegations Thirty-one As part of this scheme Rothstein and the litigation team the litigation team is defined in the complaint as Brad Edwards and Paragraph utilized the judicial process including but not limited to unreasonable and unnecessary discovery for the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme Forty Edwards filed amended answers PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC to interrogatories in the state court matters E.W and L.M and listed additional high-profile witnesses that would allegedly be called at trial including but not limited to And then various individuals are identified And then paragraph The sole purpose of the scheduling of these depositions was again to pump up the cases to investors There is no evidence to date that any of these individuals had or have any knowledge regarding RRAs civil actions THE COURT For the record thats a quote from paragraph as opposed to argument MR SCAROLA Thank you Sir Im sorry If we go to page of the complaint subparagraph Rothstein and again this is a quote Rothstein and the litigation team knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Those reasons are listed Again questioning the legitimacy of the claims Page paragraph The actions described in paragraph above herein had no legitimate purpose in pursuing the civil litigations sic against Epstein but rather were meant to further the fraudulent scheme and criminal activity of Rothstein Paragraph the last line RRA and the attorneys in the civil actions Please remember the civil action is a defined term in the complaint Its L.M E.W and Jane Does claims needed to create a fiction that included extraordinary damages However the actual facts behind her action would never support such extraordinary damages Going down to the last sentence in subparagraph A Under the circumstances her claim for damages against Epstein one of L.M many johns during that same period would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to RRAs investors PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Paragraph of page second sentence Rather than evaluating and resolving the cases based on the merits that is the facts which included knowledgeable voluntary and consensual actions by each of the claimants and substantial pre-Epstein psychological and emotional conditions et cetera So again the allegation is that these children were knowledgeable voluntary and consensual participants THE COURT Let me ask you this My memory is good but not great The three litigants that Mr Edwards represented and perhaps still represents L.M E.W and Jane Doe were they all allegedly underaged at the time of these encounters MR SCAROLA Yes sir they were So that obviously as a matter of law they were incapable of consenting The last sentence I want to reference in this case Your Honor appears at page The last sentence in paragraph in order to continue to bring in moneys from investors Rothstein and other PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC co-conspirators used the civil actions against Epstein along with other manufactured lawsuits as a means of obtaining massive amounts of money So when opposing counsel tells you We have never challenged that these three cases were legitimate again while I understand why they wish that were true that is not true And when Mr Epstein was deposed in this action Mr Epstein was asked about what he meant when he testified that these cases were ginned up And what he said was Doe referring to L.M E.W and Jane what he said was Well when I said ginned up I meant manufactured fabricated cases And the assertion is made that he never asserts the Fifth Amendment with regard to matters that are relevant to probable cause as to whether he had a legitimate basis to claim that Bradley Edwards fabricated these cases Page the deposition of March at line quote Specifically what PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC are the allegations against you which you contend Mr Edwards ginned up Answer I would like to answer that question A many of the files and documents that weve requested from Mr Edwards and the Rothstein firm are still unavailable With respect to anything that I can point to today Im unfortunately going to have to take the Fifth Amendment on that the Sixth and Fourteenth Now thats just one very obvious example where hes asked directly what are the allegations that you claim in your complaint are ginned up and he refuses to answer the question on basis of the Fifth Amendment privilege There are many others And the question is posed which questions do I want to place before the jury as to which Mr Edwards excuse me I did it to which Mr Epstein has asserted the Fifth Amendment and the answer is every single one of them THE COURT And thats where were going to have difficulty As far as the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Court is concerned the case that strike that The question and answer that was just provided would be admissible What were talking about Mr Scarola are questions that were cited in the motion and that the court has chosen not to read that are of a graphic sexual nature and have to my recollection a general form of question as opposed to specifics Have you ever done certain things to minors Have you ever been with prostitutes Have you ever things of that nature MR SCAROLA I dont recall that last question but I understand the Courts I understand the Courts concern THE COURT Ms Rockenbachs question Again I know you understand it but I want to make sure that the record is clear and thats this I have an obligation as both sides are well aware to ensure that we are working on a level playing field to the extent that it is possible I have the obligation as Ms Rockenbach points out to be the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC gatekeeper of evidence and to ensure to the best of my ability that we are not going to be engaging in pejorative name-calling types of questioning nor are we going to get into inflammatory types of questioning just for the sole purpose of information Now I know you wouldnt do that But at the same time as advocates your respective positions have to be clear-cut in favor of your respective clients However as I said earlier it really becomes an issue of drilling down into the specifics before I can make rulings on the actual questions that are being sought to be introduced So the global aspect of the Courts decision at this time until I look at the actual questions is essentially this And that is that Im going to permit and weve already gotten a stipulation on the record by Mr Epsteins counsel which I appreciate that is hes not going to be receding from his Fifth Amendment invocations Hes not going to be changing his testimony so as to necessitate further PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC discovery as it relates to his testimonial evidence that has already been presented Therefore those questions that deal with for example the question that you asked and answered would be admissible Those because of the reasons that I stated earlier would seem to make common sense to me and seems to be the thrust of the decisions of the courts whether in Florida or outside of Florida the vast majority being outside of the state and some from the federal courts and that is that the Fifth Amendment cannot be used to take away Mr Edwards ability to prove his case or prove the probable cause element So to the extent that it would be needed to go in front of the jury any questions that deal with the issue of Mr Epsteins lawsuits brought by Mr Edwards on behalf of the respective clients would be germane And any invocation such as what was illustrated here would be germane and relevant and found to be admissible Thats the core ruling of the Court PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Now when it comes to issues of general graphic questioning such as what has been exemplified by way of the counter-defendants motion those will not be permitted The closer question and the one that I need to drill down further is one of because the complaint and I appreciate the fact that you brought this with you today and provided it to me because the complaint delineates the nature of the allegations at least from a summary perspective of the three claims how much are we going to be able to introduce if those questions were asked I havent memorized the deposition testimony There were at least two depositions if Im not mistaken MS ROCKENBACH Yes Your Honor THE COURT Two depositions I havent memorized that testimony But since the complaint let me cite to you exactly where we are where I am alluding to here Page and it states Rothstein and the litigation team knew or PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons Then it goes through L.M testified she had never had any type of sex with Epstein worked at numerous clubs is an admitted prostitute and call girl has a history of illegal drug use pot painkillers Xanax Ecstasy and continually asserted the Fifth Amendment during her depositions in order to avoid answering relevant but problem questions for her E.W testified she worked separate strip clubs including Cheetah which RRA represented and in which Rothstein may have owned an interest And E.W also worked at Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach which as the subject of a recent police raid where dancers were allegedly selling prescription painkillers and drugs to customers and prostituting themselves Jane Doe federal case seeks million from Epstein She and her attorneys claim severe emotional distress as a result of her having voluntarily gone to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Epsteins home She testified that there was never oral and/or sexual intercourse nor did she ever touch his genitalia Yet Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress well prior to meeting Epstein as a result of having witnessed her father murder his girlfriends son She was required to give sworn testimony in that matter and has admitted that she lied in sworn testimony Jane Doe worked at two different strip clubs including Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach End quote Thats going to be a matter for further discussion as far as what if any questions were related to those three individuals and whether Mr Epstein refused to answer those questions Because if he did refuse to answer those questions specific to those three individuals then the likelihood is again without prejudging I havent looked at those questions that I will admit those into evidence because they relate directly to Mr Epsteins claim in his deposition and his repeated claim that these cases were PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC quote ginned up end quote and had no merit until rather recently MR SCAROLA And in that regard Your Honor obviously if the defense is going to take the position as they have stated on the record now that these were all legitimate claims the extent to which we need to get into details with regard to what happened between Jeffrey Epstein and each of the three claimants against him is going to be very different than if they persist in challenging the legitimacy of the claims Now if they do that if they are continuing to challenge the legitimacy of the claims despite the on-the-record announcement thats just been made this is going to be a very different trial than if they come in and say In spite of the fact that Jeffrey Epstein alleged that Bradley Edwards fabricated these claims we no longer take that position We recognize the fact that these were indeed legitimate claims very valuable legitimate claims So valuable that we settled them for million in combination And extremely PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC valuable claims because of the punitive damage exposure that Mr Epstein confronted How much we need to prove is dependent upon how much is contested I doubt that they are going to concede punitive damage liability THE COURT Where are we on that Has there been a ruling on the punitive damage claim MR SCAROLA We have an amended permitted by the Court There is a punitive damage claim pending against Mr Epstein There are pending issues with regard to the implications of Fifth Amendment assertions with regard to issues concerning net worth because among the questions hes refused to answer are any questions relating to his net worth THE COURT Okay But there is a current punitive damage claim MR SCAROLA Absolutely Yes sir THE COURT I just want to make sure The way it was written it was a little bit cryptic in terms of pending I didnt know if it was still a motion that needed to be PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC heard in that regard Thats all been taken care of MR LINK I think Judge Crow entered that order Your Honor MR SCAROLA All over but the jury verdict Your Honor in the minutes or nine minutes now that I have left before lunch I want to go through something that I think will be helpful to the Court In resolving some of the issues that Your Honor has focused on which clearly are issues of concern with regard to how probable cause is proven in the context of a Fifth Amendment assertions on the part of the defendant who wont talk about some elements MR LINK Mr Scarola may I interrupt for one second Do you mind MR SCAROLA Yes sir MR LINK Judge I want to make sure this is clear because I thought I stated this very clearly but sometimes what comes our of my mouth isnt whats in my head THE COURT Its okay Go ahead PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK Which is I believe I very clearly said that we have never taken the position that during the time that Mr Edwards was a sole practitioner when these cases were filed up to the point that he joined Mr Rothsteins firm did we contend that he was doing anything that was inappropriate THE COURT Okay MR LINK During the time that he was at the Rothstein firm if you will read the complaint everything that Mr Scarola just read to you was all during the time he was employed at Mr Rothsteins firm There is not an allegation in this complaint that relates to the time period from when they were filed until he joined Mr Rothsteins firm Thats a very significant distinction because we are absolutely going to say that Mr Rothstein himself was using MR SCAROLA Im sorry Could I finish my argument in the few minutes that are left before we hear rebuttal THE COURT But it may be helpful to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC hear what Mr Link is trying to suggest so that you can formulate your argument MR SCAROLA I know exactly THE COURT I will give him a minute MR LINK I dont want to take long I just want to clarify because Mr Scarola said that we have conceded that nothing was fabricated What was fabricated was not the filing of the three lawsuits in It was that there were other claims in addition to those three and that one of these three settled for million and that Mr Epstein had offered million Those are the things that we were talking about during that time period THE COURT Well the allegation though in subparagraph which was already read into the record I will read it again quote Rothstein and the litigation team parenthetically Mr Scarola has suggested that the litigation team is defined as Mr Edwards returning to the quoted provisions knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC and had minimal value and for the reasons I have already gone through in addressing what I think is going to be relevant as to those three individuals if the contention is still that these claims were not legitimate during the period of time that Mr Rothstein ad Mr Edwards worked together MR LINK I just want to make this distinction I dont want to beat this horse too much If you look at the paragraph before that paragraph it talks about the million settlement THE COURT I will take that in consideration MR LINK So its relative to that Second Your Honor MR SCAROLA Im sorry I would like in the few minutes remaining to be able to make some points before THE COURT Mr Link I am going to ask you then to save your commentary for rebuttal MR LINK I just was trying to answer your questions THE COURT I didnt know I had a PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC question pending but I appreciate it MR LINK My pleasure MR SCAROLA Your Honor I have prepared an outline which I hope is of some help to the Court in placing these issues in context The first thing that Your Honor needs to determine is the issue that we have been focusing on What are the factual allegations that we claim were maliciously prosecuted against Bradley Edwards Now what we have just heard is an effort to draw a distinction that is not drawn in the complaint What we heard is we claim that the legitimate cases that were filed by Bradley Edwards while he was the sole practitioner somehow became illegitimate the moment he walked trough the door of RRA Thats what we just heard That just doesnt make any sense Thats not the allegation in the complaint The allegation in the complaint and as testified to by Mr Epstein repeatedly in his deposition the allegation in the complaint is Bradley Edwards quote ginned PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC up these claims and he describes that as he crafted the complaints he fabricated the complaints Now ginned up doesnt happen to appear in Merriam-Websters dictionary But there are sources that define ginned up The Oxford Dictionary says ginned up means to generate or increase something especially by dubious or dishonest means The McMillan dictionary To create to generate especially artificially or by dubious means The Free Dictionary To create or produce So what we are alleged to have done is to have generated by dubious and dishonest means claims on behalf of three individuals who really werent victims for the sole purpose alleges as Mr Epstein repeatedly for the sole purpose of supporting a massive Ponzi scheme in which as Your Honor as observed repeatedly and I will get to this in just a moment Jeffrey Epstein could not possibly have been a victim Didnt know about it Didnt PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC know anybody involved in it Didnt know it was going on until after it was over Didnt spend a single penny investing in his own fabricated settlements And to the extent that he claims his damages are attorneys fees for what was going on while these cases were being prosecuted Your Honor is very very familiar with the litigation privilege and knows that nothing that went on in the course of the prosecution of those cases whether it was legitimate or illegitimate can form the basis of a separate civil lawsuit Motion for contempt motion to impose sanctions motion bar complaint a lot of other remedies are available but not a separate civil action because he had to spend attorneys fees on what he claims were illegitimate discovery pursuits which the evidence will show were totally and completely justified and in many cases initiated long before Bradley Edwards ever became a member of RRA So even if it were not already clear PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that THE COURT You are talking about the expenditure of attorneys fees MR SCAROLA Yes Thats correct Could not be damages Just cant be as a matter of law Even if it were not already clear that Epstein alleged Brad fabricated the three cases he was prosecuting against Epstein thats the only allegation that could possibly support a claim against Brad because as I mentioned because of the litigation privilege But in addition to that he suffered no damage from the Ponzi scheme He didnt even know about it Any action Brad took in the course of prosecuting those three cases absolutely privileged And as a matter of law it has been established in this case that there was no evidence to support those claims because we filed a motion for summary judgment On the eve of the motion for summary judgment without ever having filed any opposition whatsoever he voluntarily dismissed those PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC claims That issue has been resolved So we must prove lack of probable cause as to either/or both of the two false claims We have to prove Epstein did not have a reasonable basis to believe that Brad fabricated the three claims and he didnt have reasonable basis to allege that Brad was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme How do we do that when there is a Fifth Amendment assertion How do we prove what Epstein reasonably believed when he blocks relevant discovery with the assertion not only of a Fifth Amendment privilege but of a clearly legitimate attorney-client privilege as well And Your Honor has read the depositions You know all of the relevant questions that were not answered with regard to attorney-client privilege are matched by the number of relevant questions to which he asserts attorney-client privilege as well So where do we go from there And the answer THE COURT Take about two minutes to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC wrap up I want to respect the fact that I have already allowed Ms Rockenbach to leave at MR SCAROLA Yes Thank you I will Your Honor The answer lies in a very fundamental presumption And that fundamental presumption is every person is presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his act Very basic principle of law It is cited specifically in the case that I have on this page But it is a universal principal of law recognized in all American jurisdictions So proof that Epstein filed a false claim against Bradley Edwards gives rise to the presumption that he intended to file a false claim against Bradley Edwards Florida statute through those are three provisions of the evidence code talk about the effect of that presumption and I wont go into that now I will wait until after lunch but basically this lays out the way this case is proved PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC If we prove that these were not false claims if we prove that Jeffrey Epstein knew they werent false claims because he was the one who physically participated in doing what he is alleged to have done so he had to have known what he did once weve proven that the presumption arises he intended to file knowingly false claims against Bradley Edwards and we have shifted the burden of proof to him to prove one of two things the claims were true Thats a defense The other defense is Well we know the claims were not true but I reasonably believed them to be true at the time Thank you sir I will leave it right there THE COURT Thank you again both sides for your excellent presentations Thank you to our courtroom personnel as well What we are going to do is return at about I have something that I need to do between the lunch which Im going to leave a little early and an errand I need PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC do So come back at What I propose we will do is I will give you two hours this afternoon We will go to about and then proceed back with the remaining issues on the days that we have already set aside Again thank you all very much for your courtesies Have a pleasant lunch We will reconvene at We will be in recess Thank you A recess was had a.m p.m THE COURT Good afternoon everybody Welcome back Okay lets go ahead and proceed then Mr Scarola you were in the midst of your PowerPoint MR SCAROLA Thank you sir Yes Your Honor just to recap the point at which we broke off the defense has taken the position that the Baxter and Frazier cases stand for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment may not be the sole basis upon which a plaintiff rests its case to satisfy the burden of proof with regard to any element of the plaintiffs claim We PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC dont take issue with that Thats good law You cannot determine from a Fifth Amendment adverse inference alone whether probable cause did or did not exist And thats why I have reviewed with Your Honor what the other evidence is that both directly and circumstantially establishes that there was an absence of probable cause We begin with a point that one is presumed to have intended that which one did And Jeffrey Epstein when he filed claims demonstrated to be false is presumed to have intended to file claims that were false We are not taking about malice yet Independent of any evidence that relates to malice we get to prove the truth of Brad Edwards underlying claims on behalf of L.M E.W and Jane Doe So that then brings us THE COURT I think I have already essentially ruled on that from a global standpoint I am in agreement with you that any Fifth Amendment invocation as it PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC pertains to L.M E.W and Jane Doe again globally and without getting into graphic I intend to admit as being relevant You can proceed MR SCAROLA Thank you very much Your Honor So we had broken off at this point where I began to talk about Florida Evidence Code sections through And I have a copy of those evidence code provisions that I will provide to the Court I have provided them to opposing counsel as well THE COURT Thank you MR SCAROLA These provisions focus on the shifting burden of proof what a presumption does and what a presumption does not do And I have underlined some sections here for Your Honor that I think are of particular significance in those three evidence code provisions And basically the gist of these evidence code provisions is that once we have proven that these were false claims PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC once we have adduce proof that these were false claims and take advantage of the presumption that the filing of knowingly false claims gives rise to one is presumed to have intended to do that which one did and presumed to have intended the natural and probably consequences of filing false claims then the burden shifts And thats the point at which we broke for lunch where I pointed out that at that point Mr Epstein has every right to come in and say now Wait a second You have put on evidence that these were false claims I mean that these were valid claims but I have the right to come in put on evidence that they were not valid claims And he absolutely does THE COURT I think that was the gist of my point I made earlier regarding the fact that we cant take it from one side only and that if the proof is essentially within the invocation of the Fifth Amendment i.e the questions that were asked that would be pertinent to the issues of probable cause but refuse to be answered PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC then Edwards should not be penalized because of that MR SCAROLA Yes sir And I certainly agree with it And thats why I made the comment that it becomes significant when the defense stands up during the course of this argument and says we are not claiming that these were fabricated claims at the point in time at which Brad Edwards is a sole practitioner Were claiming they became fabricated claims after he joined RRA And then I guess what theyre saying is theyre unfabricated when he settled them for million If he wants to try to make that argument to the jury thats fine He can try to make that argument to the jury I dont think its going to go anywhere as a matter of fact nor do I think its going to go anywhere as a matter of law But he can try it He can try to say the valid claims got unvalidated and then got validated again and I settled them for million At any rate the burden does shift to him PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Now he can also say that these were valid claims but I reasonably believe them mistakenly but reasonably believed them to be invalid claims I had probable cause to support my malicious prosecution claim because I thought mistakenly but reasonably that they were invalid claims Then we get to the fact that Epstein cannot reasonably believe what Jeffrey Epstein knows to be false And Jeffrey Epstein knows whether he molested these children or he didnt molest these children So if we prove that he molested them he cannot contend he reasonably believed that he didnt molest them We proved that he knew the cases were not fabricated with proof that he actually molested L.M E.W and Jane Doe We proved that these were not ginned up cases These were not fabricated or created not ginned up by proving that he settled them for million not while he was under some misapprehension about what these cases were all about but after the Ponzi scheme was PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC fully and completely disclosed after he read all of these news articles that he claims that he relied on or that his lawyers claimed he relied on because he hasnt made those claims but his lawyers have made those claims and we proved the cases werent fabricated with proof of his guilty plea to the molestation of children with his Fifth Amendment assertion because his Fifth Amendment assertion at that point clearly is relevant and material and an adverse inference can be drawn from that We proved that he did not have a basis to file these claims because he fails to defend against the summary judgment voluntarily dismisses the cases and never refiles them No question about the fact that at this point in time there has been a bona fide resolution of his claims in favor of Bradley Edwards And we proved the cases were not ginned up by proving similar fact evidence And Your Honor made some reference to this but I want to be sure that we focus PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC specifically on this aspect of the case because one of the things that the defense is attempting to exclude is any reference to anything other than L.M E.W and Jane Doe cases Your Honor suggested and I thought that I heard you correctly that evidence with regard to other claims actually filed against Epstein would be relevant and material And clearly it is THE COURT I believe what I said was those cases filed by Mr Edwards or any claims that were made against Epstein by a client represented by Mr Edwards Tell me why you think that the aggregate cases not having anything to do with Mr Edwards representation or Rothstein firms representation because Mr Berger I think was involved in some respects as well MR SCAROLA Co-counsel THE COURT Solely as co-counsel I believe that to be the case are you suggesting that the aggregate cases would be relevant PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR SCAROLA Yes sir And they are relevant for multiple reasons Your Honor will recall the chart that was put up by opposing counsel that attempted to summarize all of those things that Jeffrey Epstein could have reasonably relied upon to I guess what theyre saying now is mistakenly conclude that Brad Edwards was part of this Ponzi scheme And among those things that are referenced in that chart were Brad Edwards efforts to for example and this is only one example to take discovery from pilots about what was going on on Jeffrey Epsteins private planes when all of Brad Edwards three clients acknowledged that they were not passengers on the planes And that is true It is true that all of Brad Edwards clients acknowledged that they were not passengers on Jeffrey Epsteins private jets But both the Florida Evidence Code and Federal Rules of Evidence expressly permit the federal rules are very explicit about this expressly admit the introduction of evidence PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC with regard to other child molestations in any child molestation claim THE COURT So lets talk about that for a minute Because again what I dont want this to turn into is a case testing whether or not Epstein was an alleged serial child molester It would not in my view pass muster legally and I dont want to try this case twice I think that we should be extremely circumspect when it deals when we are dealing with global issues of molestation of graphic descriptions of any types of alleged molestation except where we are dealing with claims that have been brought on behalf of those represented by Mr Edwards The risk of error if we go beyond that intended limitation is significant And I want to make sure that we again are focused on the elements of the claim And whether it be for compensatory damages associated with Mr Edwards claim or punitive damages associated with Mr Edwards claim we are still dealing with a malicious prosecution claim solely a PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC malicious prosecution claim And so to deviate from that direction would be precarious and concerning to the Court in particular because when were dealing with issue of probable cause were focusing on as Ive made clear not only Mr Epsteins stated intent but I fully intend to allow circumstantial evidence inclusive of the invocation of the Fifth Amendment relevant questions pertaining to the plaintiffs the counter-plaintiffs more precisely Mr Edwards position to explain to the jury why or to the Court why Mr Epstein brought this claim what were the true motivating factors concerning same To allow this to intrude into allegations of serial molestation is dangerous and is concerning You may proceed MR SCAROLA Thank you Your Honor I acknowledge the legitimacy of the Courts concern And I recognize the fact that the Court appropriately under Rule must balance probative value against prejudice PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC However as soon as Mr Epstein takes the position as he has in this demonstrative exhibit that and THE COURT Show me where please MR SCAROLA Lets go through these let me zoom in On this top line are all of those circumstances subsequent to when Bradley Edwards became a member of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler which Counsel says gave raise to a reasonable suspicion that Bradley Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme and was using fabricated claims to support that Ponzi scheme Lets take them one at a time Jane Doe move to unseal the non-prosecution agreement Now the non-prosecution agreement is expressly referenced in the complaint as is the Crime Victims Rights Act case So if Jeffrey Epstein is going to say efforts to unseal the non-prosecution agreement contributed to his reasonable belief that Bradley Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme we need PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC explain what the non-prosecution agreement was THE COURT Okay MR SCAROLA And what the non-prosecution agreement was was a deal that Jeffrey Epstein entered into with the federal government to avoid criminal prosecution for the molestation of approximately children Bradley Edwards was challenging the validity of non-prosecution agreement by filing a Crime Victims Rights Act case also referenced in the complaint THE COURT So lets stop there for a minute and lets refocus ourselves on the motion thats before the Court Its a motion in limine particularly from this Courts perspective important as it relates to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment and attorney-client privilege whatever that might amount to be If you ask Mr Epstein or if you have asked Mr Epstein a question regarding whether or not he was motivated to sue Mr Edwards because in part of the move by PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Jane Doe through Mr Edwards as I understand Mr Edwards has been counsel MR SCAROLA Yes sir Pro bono counsel in that case for many years THE COURT And you ask Mr Epstein is it not true that you entered into this non-prosecutorial agreement because of and I dont think theres a problem with that In other words if he refuses to answer the question then I think that can be admitted A question of whether you are a serial child molestation would fail the analysis in my view MR SCAROLA Im sorry If I led the Court to believe that thats what the question was going to be then I wasnt communicating very well THE COURT You have always communicated exceptionally well so it could very well be my error So tell me what is the intent then do you recall the questions that have been asked if any regarding this particular NPA PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that he failed to respond to at this point MR SCAROLA No sir I cant recall those offhand What I was addressing was not specifically a Fifth Amendment issue although I recognize the fact that this motion is supposed to be focused on the Fifth Amendment But Your Honor I thought raised the question about whether we were going to get into the existence of other claims besides the claims of L.M E.W and Jane Doe And thats what I was responding to I was pointing out that there is absolutely no way to avoid getting into the existence of those other claims because Epstein has raised those issues in the complaint he filed against Brad Edwards And he is relying upon those circumstances by virtue of the presentation that is being made during this hearing to suggest to Your Honor One of the reasons why I had probable cause to believe that this was a maliciously prosecuted case against me was because of what went on after Brad Edwards joined RRA PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC in moving to set aside the non-prosecution agreement So if thats what hes telling you he intends to prove Im simply pointing out to Your Honor and I can go through this and its going to come up in almost every one of these elements While I understand the Courts concern about trying to narrow the focus the door has been blown off the hinges by Mr Epsteins own complaint And his lawyers have taken that door and thrown it out the window when they argued to Your Honor that one of the reasons why we believe or Jeffrey Epstein reasonably believed that Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme is because he moved to set aside the non-prosecution agreement after he joined RRA Now many aspects of this timeline THE COURT I have to say I really dont understand the connection but I will give Mr Link the opportunity to explain it to me MR SCAROLA Well Im not quite sure PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC I understand it either but this is their exhibit They are the ones that are saying this was the basis for our making this determination or for Mr Epstein reasonably believing that Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme THE COURT Just for the record there was never a malicious prosecution claim filed by Epstein MR LINK There was not Your Honor THE COURT Abuse of process claim MR LINK Yes THE COURT Just so that the record is clear MR SCAROLA Abuse of process claim MR LINK And Your Honor if I may just point out THE COURT No not right now please You will have amble opportunity to rebut MR LINK Thank you Judge THE COURT I dont want to get into what we did this morning MR SCAROLA So all I am responding to and maybe this isnt the appropriate time to do that is the idea that we are PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC able to sanitize this case to the point where we are not going to be talking about a variety of other claims that were being prosecuted by other plaintiffs lawyers working together with Brad Edwards and not going to be talking about the Crime Victims Rights Act case because as Your Honor has repeatedly acknowledged motive is going to be very significant And we intend to prove that Jeffrey Epsteins motive in filing these knowingly false claims against Brad Edwards his motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into abandoning or cheaply compromising the rights of his clients and abandoning his efforts through the Crime Victims Rights Act case to set aside the non-prosecution agreement He had an enormous economic motive if he could limit his civil exposure and he had a tremendous motive in terms of the criminal liability he faced And the way he chose to address that was Im going to make an example out of Brad Edwards who has taken a leadership role among all these PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC plaintiffs lawyers and Im going to target one of these victims Im going to sue them both and Im going to show them what happens when you try to take on this billionaire Thats what he was trying to do Plain and simple And we are entitled I respectfully suggest to be able to prove just how big a motive that was whats at stake THE COURT Im not in disagreement with you When this went on the board my first response to Mr Link and his presentation as to Mr Epsteins reasons were what Was that this can be turned around directly to harm potentially Mr Epstein and provide Mr Edwards with the motivation So Im not in disagreement with you The only thing I am concerned with certainly one of the more pertinent things that I am concerned with for todays hearing again relates back to how far we are going to permit the jury to hear or how much we are going to permit the jury to hear as it relates to these other claims PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Now as you further described it again subject to Mr Links rebuttal there is no way around the fact that the NPA is going to become a part of this trial As I have indicated earlier and the reason for my question was to ensure that my understanding was correct that the principle reason or a principle reason Mr Epstein continues to invoke the Fifth Amendment is because of the pendency of this NPA case correct MR LINK Generally yes Its not the pending of the NPA case but its the case THE COURT The potential of a criminal further criminal exposure if the NPA gets revoked or whatever the terminology is MR LINK Thats correction Your Honor THE COURT in Judge Marras court assuming hes still the Judge on the case MR SCAROLA Just to clarify that point if I could THE COURT Sure PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR SCAROLA The non-prosecution agreement is an agreement with the U.S Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida It extends immunity to Mr Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators for crimes committed in the Southern District of Florida So even if per chance the Crime Victims Rights Act case were to go away tomorrow which seems highly unlikely Mr Epstein will still have a valid right to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege And I acknowledge that I havent challenged the validity of his Fifth Amendment assertion What we are talking about is not his right to assert it its the consequences of that assertion THE COURT And to respectfully bring us back into focus on whats before the Court generally the invocation of the Fifth Amendment and bringing out the fact that the NPA in some form or fashion because of it being a reason for the invocation of the Fifth Amendment is going to be mentioned during the trial PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Theres no way around it MR LINK We understand that Judge THE COURT Fine The question that I am going to pose to you and Mr Scarola now is how far we are going to go with that agreement and where the analysis has to focus So Not now When you have your opportunity Mr Scarola MR LINK Champing at the bit Your Honor MR SCAROLA Your Honor I believe that it is unavoidable that the jury be informed as to what the non-prosecution agreement is It would be our intention to enter it into evidence They need to understand what the Crime Victims Rights Act is What they dont need to do is to resolve the legitimacy of other plaintiffs claims Now some of Mr Epsteins sic clients in fact I think all three of them are identified in the non-prosecution agreement So Mr Epstein PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC as part of the non-prosecution agreement agrees to compensate each of these people under specific circumstances And that gets us into a discussion as to why the federal lawsuit was filed And this is something that we have referenced briefly in argument before Your Honor earlier But THE COURT I want to stay on this subject for just a moment if I could And that is tell me why you believe that the motivation that Mr Epstein may have had to file this suit was relating to or is related to this Jane Doe moving to unseal the NPA Explain that to me again please MR SCAROLA Yes sir I think that obviously motive can only be proven through circumstantial evidence if the defendant is not confessing And not only is Mr Epstein not confessing hes refusing to give considerable relevant testimony because of his assertion of both the attorney-client privilege in the absence of any assertion of advice of counsel defense as we have already established and his Fifth Amendment privilege So we need PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC to prove what his motive is circumstantially And Mr Epstein clearly knows that Mr Edwards is lead counsel in this Crime Victims Rights Act case He clearly knows because hes a participant in that case He has intervened in the case He knows that the consequences of that Crime Victims Rights Act case could be that he loses the immunity that he negotiated with the U.S Attorneys Office So being able to push Brad Edwards aside as the primary moving force in the Crime Victims Rights Act case is obviously a reasonable conclusion from those circumstances But it goes beyond that because direct threats were made to Bradley Edwards by Jeffrey Epstein THE COURT So the suggestion I guess from the defense the malicious prosecution claim of Mr Epstein is that he found it necessary to file the lawsuit strike that Yeah He found it necessary to file the lawsuit against Rothstein Edwards and PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC L.M because he felt that by doing this unsealing it was motivation it was exposure it was public information so as to allegedly gin up these three claims held by the three plaintiffs with the initials and the Jane Doe MR SCAROLA Yes THE COURT On the other hand as I indicated the reverse effect taking place would be Mr Edwards position that in fact the ill motive was the fact that and to file this lawsuit against Edwards and others was because Mr Epstein was being exposed if you will MR SCAROLA Poor choice of words THE COURT Pardon me MR SCAROLA Poor choice of words That was a joke Your Honor A bad one THE COURT Thats okay I understand So thats essentially what Im understanding count point counterclaim MR SCAROLA Yes sir My only point is we cant avoid getting into that As soon as they raise PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC it we can make the counterpoint We can explain why it was done And the same thing is true with regard to everything else that is on this list The claim for million THE COURT Im not sure that they even have raise it for it to be relevant MR SCAROLA I dont think they do because we have an obligation to prove our case We get to prove malice THE COURT Well I am even talking about probable cause MR SCAROLA And probable cause Yes sir I agree We can prove probable cause We can prove what Mr Epstein knew We can prove his motives and we can prove malice as part of proving probable cause But I dont think its necessary to ever parse out is this relevant to probable cause only is it relevant to malice only If its relevant to one or the other it comes in THE COURT And the individuals that you are contending and thats the subject to this NPA are all minors PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR SCAROLA Yes Your Honor And what the federal law says is per molestation Thats what the federal law says And what the NPA says is if these claim are brought pursuant to the federal statute you are not going to contest your liability Now what they did contest is whether its per molestation or cap So once you pay the you get to molest these kids as many times as you want to THE COURT Per claim MR SCAROLA Yes So that was an issue But thats the reason why and the jury is going to need to hear this why does Brad Edwards file a 256-page or paragraph whatever it is or counts THE COURT 254-page MR SCAROLA Whatever it is Why does he file this lengthy federal case Was that really as an effort to try to gin up these cases for purposes of participating in a Ponzi scheme or was there an independent PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC legitimate basis for doing what he did THE COURT Of course the interesting part of that is from the timeline the complaint filed the federal complaint 234-page federal complaint was filed after the settlement of three cases MR SCAROLA No sir I dont think so MR LINK No THE COURT I thought that the settlement was Im sorry My bad I was reading The and then That was my error MR SCAROLA Yes sir And you may recall we have already made reference to the timing of the filing of that federal case that we were obliged to file within two years after L.W coming of age She was about to celebrate her 20th birthday and it needed to be filed within that time THE COURT There were statute of limitations issues Again another counterpoint MR SCAROLA Exactly correct PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Absolutely I am only suggesting to Your Honor that it is very difficult to be able to say as a blanket matter I am not going to let in evidence of these other claims THE COURT Again I am not taking that position yet What Im saying is that on a matter-by-matter basis and we are using Mr Epsteins timeline and those pertinent events which are noted therein if there were questions that relate to the NPA that were asked of Mr Epstein and he did not answer based on Fifth Amendment grounds the inclination again without reading question by question would be to allow that in subject again to the issue of multiple claimants if you will the minors that you represented to the Court But again when we look at it from the standpoint of both sides trying to balance this as best I can under on the one hand we have Mr Edwards taking strike that Mr Epstein taking the position that doing what was done by Jane Doe through Mr Edwards as counsel was an attempt to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC publicize and to sensationalize the circumstances so as to increase the value of at least the claims that were held by the Rothstein firm MR SCAROLA Which I think is what every lawyer is supposed to do within the bounds of propriety obviously But our job is to maximize the value of our clients claims THE COURT And on the other side of the coin is Mr Edwards taking the position that the impetus or an impetus for filing the complaint at bar was the exposure of Mr Epstein once again to the ignominy of having to face the publicity of a non-prosecutorial agreement where there were admissions where there were agreements perhaps not admissions but agreements that limited the prosecution of him as it relates to multiple claimants or multiple potential victims So again my ruling on that is if there are questions that have to do with this issue globally they will be allowed to be asked subject to further argument as it PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC relates to the multiplicity of the numerous victims that we are dealing with here as alleged Same as it goes with this 234-page federal complaint If there were any questions that were asked of Mr Epstein where he refused to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds I find that the information would be relevant Therefore his failure to answer would be would be able to be utilized if such questions were asked of him regarding the 234-page federal complaint filed on behalf of L.M by Mr Edwards MR SCAROLA Let me just clarify one point and that is we have been focusing on questions that have already been asked of Mr Epstein Obviously we have the right to call Mr Epstein as an adverse witness We have the right to put him in that witness chair in front of the jury and to ask him questions that Your Honor has considered to be appropriate that may not have been asked at the time of his deposition So I want to make it clear that we PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC dont consider nor do I understand Your Honor to be ruling that we would only be limited to asking questions already asked of him in his deposition We would be permitted to ask him any question relevant and material to the claims that he has made against Mr Edwards and that has been announced we know he will be invoking his Fifth Amendment right THE COURT With the caveat and understanding that any reasonably sensitive type of question that is going to be construed as graphic reasonably construed as graphic going to be questions about global conduct should be run by the court first by way of a proffer MR SCAROLA I understand the Courts concern And I THE COURT I am very very cognizant of the fact that we are going to be spending a significant amount of time both pretrial and at trial And I do not want to get into a circumstance where we are going to be taking liberties at the expense of ensuring that a fair trial is provided to all PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR SCAROLA I am happy to make the commitment to the Court because I understand your concern and I recognize the sensitivity of these issues THE COURT Thank you MR SCAROLA I will make a commitment to the Court that we will proffer in advance any question that we reasonably anticipate will invoke a Fifth Amendment privilege THE COURT All right Lets move on then Again lets refocus back to some of these issues that are directly before the Court MR LINK Your Honor can I just clarify because I dont want that to leave untouched and its this May I Your Honor THE COURT Briefly MR LINK Thank you Very briefly I want to be clear that we have not heard the questions so I cant tell you without knowing what the question is whether we will raise the Fifth Amendment or not My commitment to the Court was the questions that were asked already were not going to change the assertion of the Fifth PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT I think that was a caveat to Mr Scarolas recitation MR LINK Thank you Your Honor THE COURT Again it is with the same caveat that I explained earlier and that is I am going to have both sides provide me with questions that well really it would start with Mr Edwards and Mr Scarola providing your side with questions the specific questions that were asked that Mr Scarola in good faith believes he will be asking at trial that have already been subject to invocation of the Fifth Amendment and/or attorney-client privilege or any other privilege for that matter All Ive see are Fifth Amendment and attorney-client privilege There may have been a Fourteenth amendment or another amendment MR SCAROLA Those questions will be elicited through Mr Epsteins deposition Your Honor THE COURT So what Im trying to again give you global guidance as to how the Court intends to rule on some of these PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC issues but at the same time reserving the ability to be able to review the specific questions that with the Courts global guidance today are still subject to debate as to whether or not they are going to be asked For example Mr Scarola may have a list of questions that after he has culled through the testimony he intends to ask strike that he intends to publish before the jury by way of deposition utilization If you find that any or all of those questions are outside the parameters the court has provided to you today then it will be incumbent upon you to bring those before me and to MR LINK Judge I understand Thats a fair procedure THE COURT and I will entertain further argument or I may not entertain further argument I may just rule on it pursuant to the law that I have and what I perceive to be the appropriate rules of evidence PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK Understood That procedure is very clear to me THE COURT So lets go back now I want to give Mr Scarola his opportunity is there anything else specifically that we need to talk about now on Fifth Amendment issue Because most of these other exhibit matters we can handle those we can handle them today if youd like to But we dont need to handle them in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment issue Things like massage tables and messages from notepads in Epsteins homes flight logs things of that nature dont really get into necessarily Fifth Amendment issues MR LINK We agree THE COURT So why dont you go ahead Mr Link I want to give you an opportunity to rebut MR SCAROLA Your Honor asked if there were other specific matters relating directly to Fifth Amendment and the financial discovery raises Fifth Amendment issues that need to be discussed THE COURT Okay We can do that after PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC we get finish with Mr Links rebuttal on the global Fifth Amendment issues that weve dealt with thus far Thank you MR LINK Okay Im going to pick up a couple of pieces of Your Honor I just want to touch on a couple of pieces of the presentation then I will go back to where I want to go You asked about this timeline and it doesnt say that it had anything to do with setting aside the NPA This timeline says this Jane Doe moved to unseal the NPA And the reason that that caught Mr Epsteins attention was because Mr Edwards and Jane Doe already had it They had a copy of the NPA so why would they want it to be unsealed THE COURT For the same reasons that we discussed earlier Mr Scarola was rather blunt about it and that is that doing that will enhance the value of the claims made by the three pseudonym plaintiffs MR LINK Maybe THE COURT It may be And I grant you PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that But it also could inflame Mr Epstein potentially as well It also could provide Mr Epstein with bona fide good faith motivation that he thought that this was resolved and now its being opened up again so I can see both sides MR LINK No question Thats what takes us to the Fifth Amendment and what were talking about And thats this Everything that was just discussed has to do with the truth with the truth of the allegations that are contained in Epsteins complaint against Mr Edwards What Mr Scarola wants to do and what Mr Edwards told us in his deposition is they want to show the world that those allegations were untrue THE COURT Which allegations MR LINK The allegations Mr Epstein filed against Rothstein and Edwards THE COURT That the allegation as it relates to the claims by the three pseudonym plaintiffs MR LINK No sir THE COURT Start again I am not PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC following you MR LINK So there was a lawsuit filed by Mr Epstein He sues Rothstein and he sues Edwards THE COURT And L.M MR LINK And L.M In that claim if you read it fairly you will not find an allegation that says that the three plaintiffs Mr Edwards represented fabricated their claims What you will find Your Honor when you read it is that it says that those three cases were used to entice investors to invest in other cases They also say in this complaint very clearly that those three cases those three cases the value of them the value not the legitimacy of filing them the value THE COURT Thats not what it says Paragraph which I will read for a third time says quote Rothstein and the litigation team which Im assuming that included Mr Edwards knew or should have known that their three filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC reasons MR LINK Yes I agree with that And I think any questions about that right any questions about that would go to whether that statement is true But it doesnt say it says they were weak It doesnt say that they were ginned up It doesnt say they were fabricated It doesnt say any of the words that Mr Scarola told you it said It said that they should have known remember what I said it follows the 500-million-settlement paragraph And if you relate it to the million it says they should have known that these cases werent worth million But it does not say anywhere in this complaint that Mr Edwards fabricated those three cases in It doesnt say that anywhere It doesnt say it anywhere I absolutely agree I absolutely agree it says they were used by Rothstein to attract investors Rothstein lied about those cases Mr Edwards candidly told us in his deposition that Rothstein used his cases PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Edwards cases and fabricated claims about them in settlements THE COURT And the point is what MR LINK The point is this What Mr Scarola wants to try to the jury is this case right here He wants the jury to hear the case that settled these three folks to get on the stand and say that they were physically abused when they were minors And if that is true thats what he tells us plaintiff Edwards starts by proving the truth of the claims he brought on behalf of them If he does that if he proves their underlying claims he now has lack of probable cause Its a disconnect because lack of probable cause has to do with Edwards sic state of mind at the time THE COURT Edwards or Epstein MR LINK Epstein We have all done it four times Epstein Epsteins state of mind and only his state of mind I am competent if this case was tried this is the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Edwards will get on the stand and he would tell the jury all the reasons why he did what he did And they may believe him But whether he had a legitimate reason or not isnt relevant to whether Epstein had probable cause THE COURT Lets focus on the Fifth Amendment issues MR LINK Well thats why its important because if you asked Mr Epstein a question if you asked him a question that goes something like this Did you touch E.W And sanitize it Dont put anything graphic Did you touch E.W what does that question it would be relevant here He asserts the Fifth relevant to this case indicating Judge He asserts the Fifth How is that relevant to the reasons in his head about why he decided to sue Rothstein and Edwards How can it be relevant to that THE COURT If you asking me as opposed to being rhetorical I can answer it simply MR LINK Both PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT This is pre-settlement the filing of this lawsuit at bar okay MR LINK Yes THE COURT His strike if you will is a preemptive one by virtue of filing this lawsuit MR LINK That could be his motive I agree THE COURT Thats a simple answer MR LINK Well but that goes to motive not probable cause Remember the motive ties into the malice element THE COURT I understand But the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution claim Mr Edwards has the ability through direct and circumstantial evidence to be able to put on a case as to what was Mr Epsteins reason Why did he do it To contradict Mr Epsteins contentions And in my respectful view one of those motives if youre asking me which you have and you suggested that you have MR LINK I have Go ahead I need teaching all the time PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT Its not teaching It just a common sense logical thought that the reason why you bring a lawsuit like this that constitutes somewhere in the neighborhood of pages where you are claiming after this shortly after this law firm blew up MR LINK Correct THE COURT and everybody is scrambling nobody knows whats going on federal agents are raiding the offices including I presume Mr Edwards office MR LINK Yes They took the Epstein case boxes THE COURT This is filed in The number is gives you an idea of how many foreclosure cases we had back then But the bottom line is its I dont know if its on this timeline the lawsuit is noted as to when it was filed MR LINK THE COURT Rothstein is arrested on A week later sic MR LINK A week before THE COURT A week before Exactly PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Excuse me A week before Razorback complaint is filed Things are what I would again perceive if you are asking me MR LINK I am THE COURT to be at the zenith of stress and tension MR LINK I agree THE COURT Here is something that is filed that at least arguably could be suggested was trying to get to Mr Edwards at his weakest moment MR LINK How about if for purposes of today I agree with you that that was the motive I am going to agree with you Lets say Your Honor you are exactly right For purposes of today that was the motive What does that have to do this is the whole Fifth Amendment what does that have to do with this indicating THE COURT With probable cause MR LINK Probable cause Because here is what probable cause THE COURT Did he have probable cause to file this lawsuit when he did PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK When he had the most evil of intent THE COURT You said it not me MR LINK Only for purposes of today THE COURT You asked me what my perception could be MR LINK Yes sir THE COURT and what this jurys perception more importantly could be Because again any answers that are given by this Court are what I perceive based upon years of doing this work as a trial lawyer and a trial judge and seeing hundreds of jurors and how they would go about their work MR LINK Youre older than I am I didnt think that was possible THE COURT So thats where I think my frame of reference is MR LINK And I appreciate it And I appreciate it And Im agreeing with you when you look at the element with what you just described it could potentially be evidence of malice According to the jury instruction and the case law is it cannot PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC be evidence of probable cause Here is one of the disconnects I heard Mr Scarola tell you the two statements he wants to focus on What he is telling you in a subtle way is that he wants to have a defamation case Publication of two statements falsity And then he said to you then the burden shifts which it does in a defamation case He used the defamation words truth with good motive This is not a defamation case It doesnt matter It doesnt matter if they have all the evidence in the world that they would have won they would have had a landslide victory if the Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards case was tried It doesnt make any difference because the focus has to be in December was there enough information Im not saying Judge if you were the lawyer if you would have brought it or whether I would have brought it but it was brought And the question is was there enough information available that a reasonable person would could have PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC reasonably brought this claim when they did The timing can be suspect The motive can be suspect The malice can be suspect But if theres enough information and logical inferences then you dont have a failure of probable cause And the reason thats important under the Fifth Amendment is if these three plaintiffs come in and testify then essentially what we have we are trying the very original case that was filed in because I have to then cross-examine them on all of their claims and their damages and their health conditions and whether they had done prostitution before and all of the other things that would have been tried in that case So then if we open the door to other people we are going to have sexual molestation cases THE COURT Im not suggesting we are doing that Again this is not the work of Mr Scarola This is not the work of Mr Edwards This is not the work of you or Ms Rockenbach This is the work of PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Epstein MR LINK I agree it is THE COURT making these allegations in subparagraph through some weird tiny numbers through Hes with all due respect stuck with these allegations Hes stuck with this lawsuit Hes stuck with the claims that are contained therein and the allegations that are contained therein MR LINK Absolutely I agree percent But what are we stuck with Thats the question Are we stuck trying this case Judge Or are we stuck trying to prove to a jury that based on the information that existed that we had a reasonable basis to bring a civil proceeding Because thats what it talks about It doesnt say what claim did you bring What count did you bring What statements did you bring It is a civil proceeding THE COURT Right now though Mr Link were concentrating on the Fifth Amendment issues There is not a motion in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC limine in front of me at this juncture as to the other or the 40-in-total alleged victims There is not a motion in front of me regarding how far we are going to go with regard to the trial MR LINK Fair enough Judge THE COURT in regard to the claims of the three litigants represented by Mr Edwards MR LINK Your Honor is percent right I appreciate you indulging me to answer some of the questions that were on my mind And I appreciate that Where we would like to go next Your Honor if the Court has time or we can take it up next time are those things that were on the exhibit list and witness list One of the things we dont know based on the rulings so far is will E.W L.M and Jane Doe be taking the stand because thats part of the motion in limine what we have been talking about THE COURT Are they listed as witnesses PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC MR LINK Pardon me THE COURT Have they been deposed MR LINK They have not been deposed in this case THE COURT I presume they are listed as witnesses MR LINK They are listed as witnesses MR SCAROLA Your Honor Im sorry MR LINK Were they deposed in this case MR SCAROLA One of them was deposed MR LINK Im sorry MR SCAROLA One of them was deposed in this case just recently MR LINK I thought that was oh yes Youre right Sorry about that One out of two MR SCAROLA And the only one noticed to be deposed MR LINK And thats an issue that you told us to come back to you on Judge because if they are going to be called dont know if they are but if they are going to be called then I would like the I PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC opportunity to depose those two THE COURT What I said somewhat off-the-cuff but not as articulate as the Second District Court of Appeal in the case of Liabos versus Harman L-I-A-B-O-S Harman H-A-R-M-A-N So.2d was what I intended earlier just so that we are all clear on the issue of probable cause at least as it relates in this case in my relatively quick word search It says It should be first noted that the lack of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact I will omit the citation that is to say when the facts relied on to prove a lack of probable cause are in dispute their existence is to be determined by the jury as a question of fact Their legal effect on the other hand is determined to be determined by the Court but only after these facts are admitted to found are admitted or found to be true MR LINK Yes Thats right We are in complete agreement which is if the facts we say we relied on in bringing this PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC claim if theres a dispute about one of those facts and whether we rely on it then we would have a jury trial and the jury would determine whether we relied or not The Court would then take the pieces of information that was relied on and decide if that was enough You may agree it is you may agree it is not Judge Its going to be your call THE COURT Lets go back to the Fifth Amendment issues and deal with those now You have gotten my global rulings on the issues I am going to review the individual questions that are intended to be reasked or to be published by the counter-plaintiff Edwards at trial as it relates to Mr Epsteins invocation of the Fifth Amendment and the related privileges that he is claiming I dont want to be hamstrung by this record as only dealing with Fifth Amendment Anything thats in his deposition that has been objected to on privilege grounds MR LINK Thank you Your Honor We appreciate it PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT Thanks What I would like to then get into next are some of these exhibits If we can deal with those now lets go ahead and do that We will use the next hour or so to take care of those please MS ROCKENBACH May I approach the bench Your Honor THE COURT Sure MS ROCKENBACH I have a copy of Mr Edwards amended exhibit list And those items that are highlighted some of which Your Honor has already mentioned this would be related to paragraph or item Bin the revised omnibus motion in limine on page Mr Epstein has raised both and asserted both relevance and the gatekeeper function of the Court probative value prejudicial effect of Some of the examples that Your Honor had mentioned I think was a massage table which was number But if we start at the front there is an order confirmation from Amazon for the purchase of a book entitled PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Slave Craft Workbook for Erotic Slaves and their Owners Completely irrelevant prejudicial has zero probative value whatsoever to do with the malicious prosecution action The same is true and I have highlighted all of these they are really grouped Your Honor Some of them are just so outrageous when you read them such as the erotic book sex offender registrations massage table school records and year books of Jane Doe and unidentified year books just of Royal Palm Beach Flight logs evidence of contributions to Palm Beach Gardens Police Department And there are some articles which leads me very quickly and I think we can probably I hate to jump but I think based on Your Honors ruling its possible that Mr Scarola will agree to item in the motion in limine which relates to derogative adjectives when referencing my client Based on the rulings that you have made this morning I believe that Mr Scarola PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC probably would agree not to refer to Mr Epstein as convicted child molester billionaire pedophile or the like THE COURT Well billionaire pedophile I agree is subject to argument But convicted child molester Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA That is an accurate description of Mr Epstein It is a description which I believe appears in some of the newspaper articles that Mr Epstein alleges he relied upon to form a reasonable belief that Bradley Edwards was a participant in these in this Ponzi scheme THE COURT Did he take a plea of guilty MR SCAROLA Yes He entered a plea of guilty to two felonies He is a registered sex offender here in THE COURT I just want to make sure it was a guilty plea as opposed to a nolo or MR SCAROLA No It was a guilty plea Your Honor Under the non-prosecution agreement PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC with the federal government he was required to plead guilty to two state court felonies THE COURT Mr Goldberger did you want to comment on that MR GOLDBERGER Thank you Your Honor Just for a point of clarification neither of the counts that Mr Epstein pled guilty to are quote those that suggest that hes a child molester It was procuring an underage for prostitution Thats the count So the suggestion by counsel for the counter-plaintiff that he is somehow a child molester theres just no basis in the guilty plea that he entered Now he is a registered sex offender subject to a analysis Perhaps Counsel will be able to go there But theres no evidence to support based on the documents and on the guilty plea that hes a child molester He simply didnt plead guilty to anything factually related to that THE COURT Tell me exactly what he pled guilty to MR GOLDBERGER Let me get the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC document if I can THE COURT Sure MR GOLDBERGER Your Honor so theres no mistake Solicitation for prostitution procuring someone under the age of for prostitution MR SCAROLA Three someones which made it a felony correct MR GOLDBERGER Yeah Solicitation of prostitution requires three individuals before it goes from a misdemeanor to a felony THE COURT Even if its under the age alleged victim is under the age of MR GOLDBERGER Thats the other count that he pled guilty to Solicitation of prostitution of someone under the age of The solicitation for prostitution in order to make that a felony it requires three separate incidents But none of those suggest factually in any way the facts that he was a child molester Thats the point that I think my co-counsel is trying to make THE COURT Convicted child molester is PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC the term that was used MR GOLDBERGER And thats simply not factually correct THE COURT Anything else Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA Since we are dealing with this in the context of Fifth Amendment assertions THE COURT No we are dealing with this as a matter of a portion of the omnibus motion in limine MR SCAROLA Then I dont have any further comment THE COURT The objection is sustained The motion is granted As I understand it in reviewing the case law recently the guilty plea would be admissible The registration of sex offender I am going to need some additional briefing on MS ROCKENBACH And believe me Ive done that Your Honor Im not sure we can take it up today But Mr Edwards asked this Court to take judicial notice of it and we have supplied a response THE COURT I can only go through so PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC much material within the time MS ROCKENBACH I know I think we only addressed part of the motion in limine I hoped it would be quick thats why I brought it up THE COURT Off the record A discussion was held off the record MR SCAROLA Getting back to the ruling Your Honor just made I certainly have no intention of referring to Jeffrey Epstein as a convicted child molester when his convictions did not expressly relate to child molestation It was solicitation of prostitution multiple solicitations for prostitution I will be sure that I accurately refer to those things when I make reference to them THE COURT Of a minor MR SCAROLA Of minors THE COURT My understanding of the case law is clear that the plea is admissible MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor maybe we should take that up And I guess we are going to skip exhibits for a minute because PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC this is too important to just gloss over THE COURT I dont know if it has been briefed at least in the briefs that MS ROCKENBACH Probably not the way we would like but we dont want to paper the court Pages and deal with the derogatory adjectives That is somewhat along those lines But where I think Mr Scarola is going is of the Florida Evidence Code which indicates that when Mr Epstein is on the stand he can be asked Have you ever been convicted of a felony The answer Yes But the identity of that felony is not admissible and that is part of the evidence code So Im not sure Your Honor is correct this has not been fully briefed because all that I anticipated were these two very inflammatory terms THE COURT The distinction though Ms Rockenbach that I would respectfully make and Im not going to suggest that Im an authority on this particular area is that typically that question is asked for PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC one of credibility meaning have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude MS ROCKENBACH Correct THE COURT If the answer is yes the next question is how many times If there is any falsity to any of those either of those responses then the requesting party has the opportunity to provide the court and potentially the jury with counter-evidence typically in the form of certified copies of convictions MS ROCKENBACH Thats correct THE COURT Now thats a lot different than in this case where we are not necessarily talking about merely credibility What were talking about what in essence is at if not the heart certainly near the center of the entire case In other words but for the fact that at least but for one of the facts that Mr Epstein was convicted the context of a malicious prosecution claim and the context of the contentions that would be PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC made by Mr Edwards relating to the malicious prosecution claim would be that his conviction and his legal peril were part of his reasons for bringing the case against Mr Edwards So this is not merely an issue of testing credibility of any given witness As I understand it just about any witness can be asked those questions This is more of an issue of a fact central to the presentation of the case MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor Mr Epsteins guilty plea was June 30th His lawsuit against Mr Edwards was December 7th So the guilty plea was entered at least a year and a half before he sued Mr Edwards And my concern with this under the impeachment part of the Florida Evidence Code I am going to quote from Ehrhardt version When a witness who testifies as a criminal defendant there is a danger we are not even a criminal defendant We are not even trying the criminal case but theres danger that the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC jury will consider the convictions which are admitted only to impeach as evidence the defendant is a bad person The concern is greater when there are number of prior convictions But the point is this is bad character evidence under Its improper impeachment under And we absolutely oppose and object to the guilty plea coming into evidence It has no relevance to the issue of why my client filed a malicious prosecution action a year and a half after he pled guilty THE COURT Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA Ms Rockenbach is incorrect that we would seek to admit this evidence solely under because under that provision of the evidence code we would be restricted to Have you ever been convicted of a crime How many times I understand that entirely And thats strictly a matter of credibility However the issue that we have the burden of proving is an issue of probable cause And that involves as we have PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC explained in great detail an analysis of what Mr Epstein knew Part of what Mr Epstein knew when he sued Bradley Edwards is that he was guilty of multiple crimes involving sexual activity with minors Thats part of what he knew He pled guilty to that Now he was asked in deposition Who are the minors that you pled guilty to Objection Fifth Amendment I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me He refused to identify those people Well we can draw an adverse inference from that And the adverse inference we can draw is that the three people were L.M E.W and Jane Doe Now he can get up and try to rebut that adverse inference through something other than his own testimony because through his own testimony he has foreclosed any further evidence coming from him But if theres some independent source where he can suggest to the jury that this is not a proper inference to draw he wasnt PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC pleading guilty to crimes committed against these three young women these three children at the time then he can do that But it is relevant and material to the issue of probable cause because he admitted sexual offenses relating to children and refuses to identify in the context of this case who those children are So this isnt just propensity This isnt bad character This is evidence that is directly material to an element of this case that we are obliged to prove So your Honors reaction was absolutely correct There are other reasons why this comes in in the context of this case Thank you sir MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor may I reply THE COURT Sure MS ROCKENBACH In Mr Epsteins deposition March 17th on page Mr Scarola asked him line Who is the minor that you procured for prostitution And the answer is I do not know Lets get back to the probable cause PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC issue MR SCAROLA Im sorry I do stand corrected I am remembering now that that was his response It wasnt the Fifth Amendment assertion It changes none of the arguments Ive just made THE COURT I understand MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor the issue of whether my client pled guilty to prostitution with one minor or not is not relevant to what facts and circumstances and thats the phrase of all the cases reported what facts and circumstances were known to Mr Epstein when he filed his malicious prosecution And the Wright versus Yorco phonetic case We havent talked about it but THE COURT Im familiar with it MS ROCKENBACH Im sure Your Honor both sides cited it And it talks about what constitutes that probable cause The public record The public record So my client can rely on two parts Rely on firsthand knowledge or trustworthy information provided to him Thats the PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Razorback lawsuit Thats Mr Bill Scherer the Fort Lauderdale attorney being quoted by the newspaper as saying that Epstein Rothstein didnt act alone Its the head of the South Florida FBI saying this was not a one-man show The issue of my clients plea of guilty has nothing to do with his probable cause of whether he believed Mr Edwards was in connection with Mr Rothstein in puffing up the claims THE COURT One thing I appreciate the appellate courts doing recently is writing somewhat extensively on the fluidity of motions in limine and the fact that until the court can digest at trial all of the facts that are being presented in putting these things into context it makes it somewhat difficult and recognizes the trial courts difficulty in dealing with some of these motions and some of these issues without context But in my respectful view the flaw of the argument from its inception again Im not trying to be disrespectful but PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC the flaw in the argument is what I perceive to be a lack of recognition of not only Mr Epsteins rationale for filing his suit but the focus or lack thereof on Mr Edwards responsibility and burden strict one and a strong one according to a onerous used by one of the cases in being able to prove probable cause here And Mr Scarola has used in his briefing this building-block approach And I think the same type of analogy or picture can be utilized here when speaking about the motive What was the probable cause in actuality from the counter-plaintiff Edwards standpoint for Epstein doing what he did As I indicated before but didnt use the analogy what you and Mr Link provided to the Court provides not only building blocks for potentially Mr Epsteins probable cause but likewise provides building blocks for Mr Edwards proving that he did not have probable cause And as far as the Court is concerned if the guilty plea came after he filed suit PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC then there might be some reasonable argument to separate it out and say Judge he hadnt even filed suit strike that the suit was filed He hadnt pled guilty The guilty plea came three years after he filed this suit for malicious prosecution then it would probably be a relevancy argument that may or may not win the day But when looking at it from a building block type of analysis as I have in the most simplest terms in looking at it from both sides which I am incumbent to do as Mr Scarola alluded to this is but one item that could be argued to have fueled Mr Epstein to have filed this lawsuit thus making it relevant Now the fluidity issue that I spoke about is Im willing to look at it again if theres a case on point that specifically says otherwise But for purposes of this particular matter the Court would find absent the production of a case that would say otherwise that Mr Epsteins guilty pleas I understand its combined so Im PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC not suggesting there were more than one combined plea would be relevant that it would be relevant to the issue of probable cause and it would be relevant potentially to the issue of malice And that again with the Court looking at it from both sides and analyzing it from both sides it could be used by Mr Epstein It could be used by Mr Edwards But it provides at least some relevancy defined again as proving or tending to prove or disprove a material fact The material fact is the element of probable cause and perhaps malice So again I am going to rule that they would be admissible Next issue please But again we are going to completely and entirely stay away from any type of pejorative comments I understand that sometimes things are said in the heat of deposition that would never be repeated at trial Again Im certainly ordering that that not take place All right We want to go back to some PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC of these in the time that we have left lets go back to some of these exhibits and see if we can work through them MS ROCKENBACH Thank you Your Honor We had identified and have highlighted starting with number three photographs and information of Mr Epsteins homes planes automobiles Im not sure what relevance that would have as to why he filed a malicious prosecution action THE COURT Lets take them one at a time Mr Scarola whats your position MR SCAROLA His homes and his automobiles are evidence with respect to his pecuniary circumstances obviously a relevant matter when we are talking about a punitive damage claim THE COURT Typically though net worth is what is considered not necessarily unless its impeachment i.e youll have a picture of a home that he owns in the US Virgin Islands I think that he has some connection with one of those islands And Im not trying to PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC suggest anything as far as anything inappropriate But I can conceive of this situation that if Mr Epstein testifies that his net worth is comprised of A Band in large part but you find an asset that he has not taken into account thats worth twice as much of his claimed net worth MR SCAROLA I know he has a minimum net worth of I dont mean to interrupt Your Honor but Mr Epstein refuses to provide any evidence with regard to his net worth so we are obliged to offer circumstantial evidence of his net worth unless and until those objections based on Fifth Amendment grounds are overruled on the basis that they are non-testimonial THE COURT I think thats a subject for another motion MS ROCKENBACH It is Your Honor MR SCAROLA It is But Your Honor should not be deciding this issue on the basis of the premise that we are going to get evidence from Mr Epstein as to what Mr Epsteins net worth is PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT Agreed MR SCAROLA All he has told us is hes willing to stipulate to a net worth in excess of million Well it makes a difference as to whether its million million or a thousand million that is a billion dollars or billion So even if were left with a Fifth Amendment assertion we are back to the same issue that was raised by the defense and that is there needs to be some evidence independent of the Fifth Amendment assertion that would allow the inference to be THE COURT Im going to cut you off Im going to defer on number three Number four is the Amazon receipt for the SM A Realistic Introduction Slave Craft Roadmap for Erotic Servitude-Principles Skills and Tools and Training Miss Abernathy A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their Owners MR SCAROLA I never read it Your Honor if I might MS ROCKENBACH It has no relevance Your Honor Prejudicial Should not be PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC discussed referenced admitted I think its also a receipt from Amazon for the book by the way Its an order confirmation If my memory serves correct its a receipt for the purchase of a book It has nothing to do with malicious prosecution THE COURT Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA In fact it does I might explain to Your Honor that many of the items that are on this list that are being challenged a vast majority of them were part of an appendix to the motion for summary judgment that was not defended against by Mr Epstein THE COURT Let me ask you this Was this particular exhibit located prior to the suit being filed by Mr Epstein MR SCAROLA Yes sir MS ROCKENBACH Its the receipt located by whom THE COURT By anybody For the purposes of this case MR SCAROLA These are items THE COURT In other words was it PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC discovered in a lawsuit that was filed prior to Mr Epstein filing this suit MR SCAROLA No sir It was discovered when a search warrant was executed by law enforcement shortly after the criminal allegations were made against Mr Epstein before any of the civil lawsuits were filed So law enforcement gets probable cause to execute a search warrant on Mr Epsteins home And one of the things that is found or many of the things that are described here are found during the course of the execution of that search warrant and formed probable cause for the criminal charges against Mr Epstein Even more significantly they formed the basis for the civil lawsuits that were filed on behalf of L.M E.W and Jane Doe that is this is all evidence taken into account in substantiating the validity of the claims of these three particular victims of Mr Epstein And all of these things are delineated in the motion for summary judgment that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Mr Epstein does not defend against and voluntarily dismisses his case on the eve of the hearing Your Honor is well aware of procedurally he would have been obliged well in advance of the hearing to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment He doesnt do that Why is that significant in the context of this case Because as we have heard from the defense they are going to challenge whether there is a bona fide termination of the claim against Mr Edwards in favor of Mr Edwards Was the abuse of process claim terminated under such circumstances as to indicate a bona fide termination How do we make that decision Well the only way to make that decision is to talk about the motion for summary judgment what supported the motion for summary judgment and the fact that the motion for summary judgment was not opposed A voluntary dismissal was taken and the statute of limitations permitted to expire PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC without ever refiling those claims So as long as bona fide termination remains an issue the motion for summary judgment is clearly relevant and material And this is all part of the motion for summary judgment Many of these things in addition to that forms the basis for the explanation of Mr Edwards conduct when he was a member of RRA and demonstrate that he wasnt abusing the process in any respect at all while he was prosecuting these claims He was pursuing very relevant and material avenues of discovery reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence So thats my full response to this THE COURT The objection is sustained on two grounds on relevancy and also analysis I will entertain the introduction outside the presence of the jury if it becomes necessary The other concern I have is that at best it appears to sound like it may be impeachment on a collateral matter PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC collateral to the summary judgment the summary judgment motion was made and then not challenged For those reasons Im going to sustain the objection at this time again subject to context for being able to readdress it if necessary MR SCAROLA Number four is sustained THE COURT Yes sir for the reasons stated in the record MR SCAROLA Understood THE COURT The NPA I have already indicated that the inclination would be if properly predicated would be allowed The Jane Doe one of two complainants I dont see any what would be the grounds for objecting to that MS ROCKENBACH Im not sure what the relevance is Im not the proponent of the evidence but I dont see what relevance there would be of Jane Does complaint The relevance in this malicious prosecution action might be the allegations of this complaint this action But when we start bringing in other complaints as exhibits for a jury to read I think that PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC goes far afield from THE COURT This is the same Jane Doe or a different Jane Doe MR SCAROLA Same Jane Doe THE COURT Overruled Next issue MR SCAROLA Excuse me Your Honor There are two Jane Does This is Jane Doe Jane Doe was a Bob Josefsberg client And just so I orient Your Honor with regard to this matter under the terms of the non-prosecution agreement the federal court appointed Bob Josefsberg as counsel on behalf of all unrepresented victims to protect the interest of unrepresented victims turn the terms of the non-prosecution agreement One of those multiple victims being represented by Mr Josefsberg was an individual identified as Jane Doe She has since been publicly identified as Virginia Roberts/Virginia Giuffre And the specific allegations in this PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC complaint include the transport of Jane Doe Number on Mr Epsteins private jets to various homes owned by Mr Epstein in various locations inside and outside the United States THE COURT Shes expected to be a witness MR SCAROLA Yes sir THE COURT Live witness MR SCAROLA Live THE COURT At this point Im going to find that if in fact she is a witness that it would be cumulative and hence I am going to sustain the objection on those grounds MR SCAROLA May I just finish my argument as to why this complaint was of significance Because she does she does allege in the complaint that she was molested onboard the airplane and that she was prostituted out to third parties onboard the airplane which provided the basis for Mr Edwards seeking airplane logs and the testimony of pilots and the testimony of others identified in the flight logs as PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC being present on the plane THE COURT Thats fine I dont have a problem with Mr Edwards testifying If it becomes an issue in terms of credibility or whatever it might be then I will take another look at it But on the basis of the arguments that I have heard the objection is sustained for the reasons that I provided MR SCAROLA Understood Thank you sir MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor before we leave based on Your Honors ruling I would make an ore tenus motion for leave to depose Virginia Roberts because now it has become clear that she is going to be testifying based on Mr Scarolas statement and Your Honors ruling THE COURT Wasnt she scheduled to come to court from Australia Wasnt that the lady MR SCAROLA Thats where shes living She was scheduled to come to court She was available to be deposed previously They chose not to take her deposition She PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC has been listed as a witness for years in this matter THE COURT Youll have to do a written motion But I want to be consistent with what I said recently and that is that its not the continuance is not and I emphasize not designed to be a wholesale reopening of discovery that the Court would take that up on an issue-by-issue basis but without pre-deciding anything unless it can be demonstrated to the Court that there was unavailability that there was a late filing that there was some type of inability of a witness to testify something along those lines These witnesses have been listed for a lengthy period of time Again this was not the purpose of the motion that was filed and it was not the import of the order of the Court Lets talk about number seven MS ROCKENBACH Messages taken from message pads found at Mr Epsteins home THE COURT What do the messages say MR SCAROLA They relate to arranging PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC sexual massages with minors I cant tell you from memory but Mr Edwards may be able to whether there are specific references to our three clients THE COURT Not to be overly technical or hypertechnical here is Mr Edwards serving as co-counsel MR SCAROLA Yes Your Honor I think Ive told Your Honor before we dont anticipate him taking an active role in the trial but he remains as co-counsel of record in this case THE COURT Fair enough Mr Edwards would you like to comment on that MR EDWARDS Sure Your Honor The message pads include the names of many of the underaged females that visited and set up appointments at Mr Epsteins home including L.M E.W and Jane Doe THE COURT Have they been authenticated by Mr Epstein Or did he take the Fifth on that MR EDWARDS He has taken the Fifth on questions related to that They have been PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC authenticated in other depositions by Detective Vicari although those were taken in other cases But hes an available witness who could testify as to the chain of custody where he found the message where he found the messages and how he gathered them during the search warrant THE COURT The relevancy Mr Scarola MR SCAROLA They clearly relate to the validity of the claims on behalf of these three victims of Mr Epstein They corroborate that these young women were there at his home on many occasions and along with a large number of other underaged females who were being routinely molested by Mr Epstein MS ROCKENBACH Your Honor may I reply This is inflammatory These message pads may be relevant had Mr Edwards not settled the three lawsuits in which he represented those three women But they are not relevant in the malicious prosecution case whether my client had probable cause to file this action or not Or malice We are definitely getting far afield in PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC terms of the exhibits And it looks like and I understand why Mr Edwards would want to try exhibits that were relevant to his clients action because the exhibits that should be relevant in the malicious prosecution case are the facts and circumstance or the lack of facts and circumstances on which my client relied in filing this lawsuit the civil proceeding the civil action Message pads regarding these appointments are absolutely prejudicial and not which prejudicial effect clearly outweighs any remote probative value in this action MR SCAROLA It seems to me that we are going unfortunately around the same mulberry bush The validity of the claims is an issue In addition to that the viability of the claims against Mr Epstein from a criminal perspective is part of why he was so concerned about this non-prosecution agreement being set aside He knew that there was a mountain of PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC evidence that would prove that he was a serial child molester that there were dozens and dozens of victims of his molestations which were occurring multiple times a day day after day after day And the only way he could foresee at this point in escaping the criminal exposure that was clearly going to result in convictions because of this mountain of evidence available was to scare off the one person who was challenging that non-prosecution agreement through the Crime Victims Rights Act case THE COURT Im going to defer on ruling on this But it is not to be mentioned during opening statements And it is going to be determined by the Court in the context in which I believe it would be necessary And Im concerned about first as I mentioned earlier on in another exhibit that this is collateral That it would constitute impeachment on a collateral matter Again I dont want to get back into PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC serial child molestation I believe words to that effect were just utilized so thats the reason for the ruling I think that right now based upon what Im looking at which is not the actual messages but just the recitation of an exhibit would be that there that any probative value would be materially outweighed by the prejudice MS ROCKENBACH Thank you Your Honor We are working off of Mr Edwards exhibit list And the next one is eight documents related to Mr Epstein produced by Alfredo Rodriguez THE COURT Alfredo Rodriguez was the houseperson if Im understanding MS ROCKENBACH Yes Your Honor THE COURT I dont know what that means What specifically are we talking about MR SCAROLA Were talking about a book that contains a list of Jeffrey Epsteins victims their names and telephone numbers as well as a number of other contacts that Jeffrey Epstein has who PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC through other evidence were established to be regular guests in his home These provided corroboration of the testimony of L.M E.W and Jane Doe They provided evidence of the extent of Mr Epsteins molestation of children which obviously supports the magnitude of the wrong in which he was engaged which goes directly to the punitive value of the claims brought by L.M E.W and Jane Doe that is a jury faced with the task of making a determination as to the appropriate amount of punitive damages is instructed that they shall take into consideration the magnitude of the wrong and that includes the total number of victims involved in the offenders wrongdoing THE COURT I presume that by the time the case was settled that I or a predecessor judge in that division had found a valid claim for punitive damages in terms of those cases that we are dealing with here MR SCAROLA Yes There were multiple punitive damages claims pending THE COURT I would have expected so PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC I just didnt know the timing MR SCAROLA Yes MS ROCKENBACH Your Honors question got us directly to the point This is relevant evidence for punitive damages in Mr Edwards clients cases not in this case THE COURT My concerns are again that we are going too far afield And again my best efforts are to try to keep this as a level playing field when it comes to focusing on the claims that are made in this particular case that being the malicious prosecution case And while I know and I have already indicated and I believe Epsteins counsel has conceded that it cannot be sanitized and will not be sanitized because it goes to many of the issues that are involved here and by way of Mr Edwards recitations through Mr Scarola the motives that Mr Epstein may have had to file the action at bar But at the same time I am going to rule in the same way as I did as to number seven PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC and that is that I find that under that the probative value any probative value is materially outweighed by the prejudice involved MR SCAROLA May I ask a rhetorical question Your Honor THE COURT Sure MR SCAROLA When Mr Epstein alleges that these cases were ginned up when he alleges that asking in the complaint for million sic was totally out of line and supportive of his conclusions that this was a fabricated claim constructed solely for the purposes of supporting knowingly supporting a Ponzi scheme when he alleges that these cases really had no significant value how can we not talk about what the punitive damage value of the cases were and why they had enormous punitive damage value when they are claims relating to a vast number of molestations by a billionaire THE COURT Because we are dealing with the three cases that Mr Edwards represented these three individuals And to allow records information about anybody else at PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC this juncture would in my view be collateral to the allegations made by Epstein in his claim And theres no contention here that Mr Edwards for whatever reason went on some type of organized witch hunt so as to persecute or threaten Mr Epstein with proof of other cases proof of other alleged molestations documents that are at issue or anything of that nature MR SCAROLA Thats exactly what was alleged sir It was alleged that Bradley Edwards was pursuing discovery with regard to molestations of other children that took place on an airline when none of Brad Edwards clients were ever molested on the airplane that he had no reasonable basis for doing that THE COURT Now it seems to me were engaging in a negative proving up a negative MR SCAROLA You lost me THE COURT You understand what Im trying to say MR SCAROLA No PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT If none of Mr Edwards clients were molested on an airplane then it seems to me to be conceding my point and that is then theres no reason for these other issues to be introduced because theres nobody that Mr Edwards represented that was molested on an airplane MR SCAROLA Thats exactly my point sir Thats the defense argument THE COURT Show me where thats MR SCAROLA Thats the defense argument that this was irrelevant discovery THE COURT Show me where thats in the complaint about the other alleged victims MR SCAROLA Well have that for you in just a moment Your Honor THE COURT Let me take a look at that and see how it may or may not be conjecture MR SCAROLA While we are finding that we will have that for you in just a moment Your Honor may recall that I referenced earlier and I have unfortunately misplaced the copy of the federal statute I should have it I should have it in just a moment PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC THE COURT I mean Im looking at paragraphs and for example where Mr Epstein alleges while relative to this action Epstein is currently named as defendant in three civil actions alleging sexual assault and battery that were handled by RRA and his attorneys including Edwards prior to its implosion presuming he means RRAs and not Mr Edwards implosion one of which was filed in federal court and the two in state court that I have already identified The civil actions were filed in August and September of Paragraph then says quote What is clear is a fraudulent and improper investment of a Ponzi scheme was in fact conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the named defendants which scheme directly impacted Epstein as a named defendant in these civil actions referencing the three at issue MS ROCKENBACH Correct THE COURT Where is MR SCAROLA Paragraphs and THE COURT Lets take a look at those PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC Paragraph states quote For instance the litigation team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein took with these famous individuals knowing full well that no underaged women were on board and no illicit activities took place Rothstein and the litigation team also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in a calculated effort to bolster the marketing scam that was taking place end quote Next paragraph MR SCAROLA Next paragraph THE COURT Quote One of the plaintiffs counsel strike that One of plaintiffs counsel Edwards deposed three of Epsteins pilots and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot currently serving in Iraq The pilots were deposed by Edwards for over hours and Edwards never asked one question relating to or about L.M E.W and Jane Doe RRAs clients as it related to transportation on flights of RRA clients on PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC any of Epsteins planes But Edwards asked many inflammatory leading and irrelevant questions about the pilots thoughts and beliefs which will never be admissible at trial which could only have been asked for the purpose of pumping the cases and thus by using the deposition to sell the cases or a part of them to third parties End quote Anything else MR SCAROLA Those are two obvious references in the complaint to conduct on the part of Brad Edwards alleged to have been improper and forming part of the basis for abuse of process claims THE COURT The Courts ruling remains the same MR SCAROLA I never like to argue after the Court has already ruled but there is one additional point that I want to make THE COURT Sure MR SCAROLA Your Honor I have cited in we have cited in submissions to the Court specifically the motion in limine addressing the scope of admissible evidence PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC that we have filed We have cited the provisions of Florida statute subsection two commonly known as the Williams Rule statute which talks about evidence of other crimes We have also cited the Federal Rules of Evidence rule And that rule expressly permits the introduction in evidence of the molestation of other children in any federal action criminal or civil involving the molestation of a child Congress explained and quote That in the submission to the Court the reform effected by these rules is critical to the protection of the public from rapists and child molesters Its justified by the distinctive characteristics of the cases to which it applies In child molestation cases a history of similar acts tends to be exceptionally probative because it shows an unusual disposition of a defendant a sexual or pseudosexual interest in children that simply does not exist in ordinary people Moreover such cases require reliance PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC on child victims whose credibility can readily be intact in the absence of substantial corroboration In such cases there is a compelling public interest in admitting all significant evidence that will shed some light on the credibility of the change excuse me of the charge and any denial by the defense So THE COURT And Mr Scarola if we were trying a sexual molestation case there may be a stronger argument But the very point that Im making is that were not trying a sexual molestation case per Now there may be elements and issues that may arise depending upon the nature of Mr Epsteins position relative to these matters However it does not change the Courts view that these messages taken from a message pad at Epsteins home relate to others and that the documents related to Epstein produced by his houseman Mr Rodriguez that relate to others remains irrelevant And any probative value if found to be relevant would be PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC materially outweighed by the prejudice The Courts decision remains the same I think its bolstered by the fact that we are not trying the child molestation case And the significance of the collateral cases is not in my respectful view necessarily a touchstone of this particular case and this particular analysis We are going to have to call it a day I thank you very much again for your arguments and your input written and oral Thank you again Again thanks to our court reporter and our courtroom personnel also for their hard work and courtesies Have a good rest of the week We will see you back if not before on December 5th MR LINK Thank you for your time THE COURT We will take up the remaining issues of evidence first and then we will go back to the schedule which I very much appreciate you all providing We will adhere to that schedule as we continue on with the motions PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC We will be in recess The above proceedings were concluded at p.m PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC COURT CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH ss I SONJA HALL certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes Dated this 1st day of December SONJA HALL PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE INC 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 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 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 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
