Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice performed pursuant to the conspiracy Laterza JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A Supp 3d S.D Fla applying Florida law Plaintiff however does not plead with whom Rothstein entered into an agreement to commit the tort of abuse of process The closest Plaintiff comes is paragraph wherein Plaintiff alleges Rothstein conspired and entered into an express or implied agreement to engage in the tort of abuse of process as part of a plan to defraud investors and further the Ponzi scheme Rothstein knew or should have known of Edwards efforts to make illegal improper and perverted use of the civil process Emphasis added Nowhere in paragraph does Plaintiff identify the alleged other party to this purported agreement Identification of the second party to the agreement is necessary because an action for conspiracy to commit any tort requires that there has been a combination of two or more persons or entities seeking to accomplish an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful act by unlawful means The actors must have a common purpose Buckner Lower Fla Keys Hosp Dist So 2d Fla 3d DCA If the other party to this supposed agreement was a corporate entity for example the tort of civil conspiracy may not lie See id Since a corporation must act through its officers directors or employees it is well settled that a corporation cannot conspire with those persons unless the individual has a personal stake in the activity apart from that of the corporation And even if that party was Defendant Bradley Edwards who Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed from this litigation Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice nearly years ago Plaintiff should still be required to clearly plead this fact to allow Rothstein to understand exactly what Plaintiff is charging him with Second Plaintiff has not adequately pied damages necessary to sustain a civil conspiracy claim Plaintiffs two damage categories are the cost of installing an enhanced security system and retention of security personnel for the safety of Epstein and to protect his property and additional and unnecessary attorney fees and costs As to the first category of damages Plaintiff does not plead that he knew about the purported abuse of process at the time it occurred and it is clear from discovery in this nearly decade old case as well as from the allegations in the original Complaint that Plaintiff did not learn about the Ponzi scheme until after its implosion in November Thus any purported costs for security were not caused by Rothsteins actions as Plaintiff could not have installed the security system until after the purported abuse of process ended and after Rothstein was already in custody As to the second category of damages attorneys fees incurred in connection with Plaintiffs defense of the sexual molestation claims being pursued by his many victims are not a compensable category of damages because all of the actions purportedly taken by Edwards are protected by Floridas litigation privilege LatAm Investments LLC Holland Knight LLP So 3d Fla 3d DCA There is No Viable Underlying Tort The Second Amended Complaint is also subject to dismissal with prejudice because there is no valid underlying tort to the purported conspiracy claim Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice against Rothstein An actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong Florida Fern Growers Assn Inc Concerned Citizens of Putnam County So 2d Fla 5th DCA As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Levin Middlebrooks Mabie Thomas Mayes Mitchell P.A U.S Fire Ins Co So 2d Fla Absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior such as the alleged misconduct at issue so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding Plaintiff was being sued by E.W Jane Doe and L.M for numerous sexual assaults when they were minor children and these victims were pursuing claims for both compensatory and punitive damages The alleged abusive litigation tactics by Defendant Edwards who again may or may not have been the party to the purported conspiracy pied against Rothstein as outlined in the Second Amended Complaint clearly have at least some relation to the then-pending sexual assault claims and are therefore protected by Floridas litigation privilege See id Dismissal with Prejudice is Appropriate Plaintiff filed his action against Rothstein on December The now operative pleading the Second Amended Complaint was filed on August nearly six years ago Since filing the Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff has taken no action to move this case along He has taken no discovery related to Rothstein he has set no depositions related to Rothstein and in fact it appears that Plaintiff did not Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice even understand that the Second Amended Complaint was the operative pleading against Rothstein until Edwards raised the issue in a Motion to Sever filed last month Florida law supports the dismissal with prejudice of a dilatory claim such as Plaintiffs case against Rothstein Specifically in Tropicaire Engg Serv Corp Chrysler Airtemp Sales Corp the Third District Court of Appeal held that a trial court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice where the plaintiff did not move the court to set their cause for final hearing until almost a year after defendants answer had been filed the time for taking testimony had expired and the plaintiff had not taken any testimony nor shown any valid excuse or cause for not having taken testimony and had not sustained the burden of proof So 2d Fla 3d DCA Here Plaintiff has failed to take any action in his case against Rothstein for nearly years and until recently had no idea what case he had even pied Plaintiffs dilatory conduct shows a lack of respect for the judicial system the Courts time and the taxpayer funds being wasted in this nearly decade old litigation against a defendant who with his present sentence of years would remain in Federal prison for the rest of his life and who has no assets to satisfy any judgment This delay is nearly times as long as that found by the Third DCA in Tropicaire Engg Serv Corp to justify dismissal with prejudice and therefore it is well within the Courts discretion to similarly dismiss Plaintiffs claim with prejudice See id Moreover dismissal with prejudice is warranted under the doctrine of aches because Plaintiffs year delay in pursuing his purported claim against Rothstein Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Plaintiffs admitted ignorance as to what complaint was actually pending is substantially unreasonable and has resulted in undue prejudice to Rothstein See Brumby Brumby So 2d Fla 4th DCA cause dismissed So 2d Fla According Defendant Rothstein requests that the Court dismiss Count II of the Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice WHEREFORE Defendant Scott Rothstein respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice and award any such further relief as the Court deems just given the circumstances I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via Serve to all Counsel on the attached list on April_ Isl Marc Nurik MARC NORIK Fla Bar No E-Mail Address marc nuriklaw.com Law Offices of Marc Nurik Broken Sound Parkway Suite Boca Raton FL Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jeffrey Epstein Scott Rothstein et al th Judicial Circuit Case No Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice Jack Scarola Esq Karen Terry Esq jsx searcylaw.com ket searcylaw.com Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Phone Counsel for Bradley Edwards Nichole Segal Esq COUNSEL LIST njs FLAppellateLaw.com kbt FLAppellateLaw.com Burlington Rockenbach P.A Railroad Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Counsel for Bradley Edwards Scott Link Esq Kara Rockenbach Esq Rachel Glasser Esq Link Rockenbach P.A Scott linkrocklaw.com Kara linkrocklaw.com Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A Goldberger Esq jgoldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL Phone Fax Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO Judge David Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein Epstein by and through his undersigned attorneys files this action against the Defendants Scott Rothstein Rothstein and Bradley Edwards Edwards collectively referred to as Defendants and alleges INTRODUCTION This litigation has at its core a law firm that has been described by a United States Attorney as a criminal enterprise Its founder Scott Rothstein Edwards partner is currently serving a 50-year sentence in federal prison for selling fake settlements to unsuspecting investors Through the law firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A RRA Rothstein and others in this criminal enterprise conducted a billion Ponzi scheme which was perpetrated with fake agreements forged signatures and a fundamental corruption of the many legal protections that the legal system has in place By claiming to be engaged in what was essentially legal extortion Rothstein persuaded investors that he could pressure defendants including Epstein into paying astronomical settlements and further defrauded investors by convincing them to purchase fake interests in assignments of fictitious structured settlements FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint including those falsely claimed to have been reached by RRA for Edwards clients with claims against Epstein to the detriment of the Plaintiff Defendant Edwards made improper use of the judicial system and civil process by inter alia filing a complaint in federal court although a state court complaint had been pending on behalf of the same plaintiff for almost a year engaging in unreasonable and vexatious discovery and motion practice in certain underlying actions against Epstein making unfounded and highly charged sexual allegations in these underlying actions and using improper investigatory tools and causing damages to Epstein The United States government has stated that Rothstein conspired with others to use RRA as a criminal enterprise to conduct a racketeering activity including mail and wire fraud money laundering and consipiracy GENERAL ALLEGATIONS This is an action for damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs Epstein is domiciled in Palm Beach County Florida Rothstein was at all relevant times a resident of Broward County Florida and the chairman managing partner and chief executive officer of a law firm called Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A RRA whose main office was in Broward County Edwards is a resident of Broward County Florida and is licensed to practice law in the state of Florida Beginning in April and at all relevant times Edwards was a partner in RRA FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint The Ponzi Scheme During Rothstein pursued a course of criminal conduct which included a scheme to defraud various investors into purchasing fake interests in assignments of fictitious structured settlements by showing them complaints filed in the Edwards cases against Epstein which settlements were falsely claimed to have been reached by RRA on behalf of clients including clients who had brought legal actions against the Plaintiff in exchange for immediate payments to these clients of a discounted lump sum amount The purpose of the investments was to enrich Rothstein along with other members of RRA and others to sustain the daily operations of RRA and specifically among other things to raise capital to continue to fund investigators which were to be used in the prosecution of claims against the Plaintiff At or near the time that Rothstein and others in his firm many of whom have pled guilty to federal crimes were pursuing this Ponzi scheme RRA was also engaged in litigation against Epstein in three civil cases The cases were Jane Doe Epstein Case No 08-CIV Jane Doe U.S District Court Southern District of Florida L.M Epstein LM Case No CA and Epstein EW or Jane Doe CA collectively the Epstein Actions The lead attorney for RRA handling the Epstein Actions was Defendant Edwards Beginning in approximately the spring of through October in support of the massive Ponzi scheme Rothstein made various representations to potential investors regarding the Epstein Actions as well as other alleged claims against Epstein including but not limited to the following FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint That RRA had settled one case for at least Thirty Million Dollars That RRA had a team of investigators consisting of former law enforcement officers including a former sheriff who would use this sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and sift through a potential defendants garbage looking for damaging evidence that could be used to benefit RRA clients by enhancing the value of the clients claims and thereby engaging in tactics tantamount to legal extortion That Rothstein had meetings with Epsteins alleged victims and their families regarding the structured settlements That these victims would take a lesser settlement if paid promptly and that investors who funded these early payments would be paid their investment plus a return when Epstein paid the greater amounts to settle the claims That in addition to the Epstein Actions many women were lined up to settle with Epstein with claims for hundreds of millions of dollars That RRA attorneys would sue Epstein and disclose embarrassing information about Epstein his family friends and associates unless Epstein paid exorbitant settlements That if the potential investors did not make investments as promised on a strict timetable RRA risked being fired and would lose the cases they had against Epstein to other lawyers and That one of the RRA clients felt that Rothstein had lied to her repeatedly about funding and that she was one step away from going to another lawyer and going to the Florida Bar RRA employed a team of investigators on the Epstein Actions including Michael Fisten Fisten and former Broward County Sheriff and convicted felon Ken Jenne Jenne Fisten and Jenne were the primary investigators assigned to Edwards and routinely reported to Edwards and Rothstein regarding their investigations of Epstein Edwards brought the clients Jane Doe EW and LM to RRA when he joined the firm in April Rothstein approved Edwards incurring costs between to on the Epstein Actions costs paid for as the proceeds of its massive fraud FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint In October Rothstein directed Edwards investigative team to bring case files into a conference room at RRA to be examined by potential investors Then Fisten and Jenne brought in the case files for the Epstein Actions which numbered as many as nineteen boxes On or about October Dean Kretschmar Kretschmar a representative of one of the investor groups was encouraged by Rothstein in a meeting with other partners of RRA to look at the Epstein case files that Fisten and Jenne had stacked around the conference room On or about October Illinois attorney Michael Legamaro and his client hedge fund operator Thane Ritchie were also invited to examine Epstein case files and a flight log displayed by Rothstein that allegedly contained the names of numerous celebrities who purportedly flew on Epstein aircraft Mr Legamaro and his client reviewed both the flight log and the case files in the offices ofRRA The Epstein case files were displayed to potential investors in RRAs office to show them that the cases against Epstein were legitimate and that the alleged victims actually existed all for the purpose of obtaining the investments Although Edwards has given sworn deposition testimony that only a few attorneys employed at RRA were directly involved in the prosecution of the Epstein Actions a privilege log prepared by Edwards and other documents clearly reflect that more than eighteen RRA lawyers were involved in prosecuting the Epstein Actions Additionally four RRA investigators and several legal assistants and paralegals were involved in the Epstein Actions FOWLER Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint On multiple occasions and in contrast to Edwards sworn testimony many RRA attorneys conferred and were involved with the prosecution of the Epstein Actions including as described below a On May Russell Adler Adler a name partner in RRA who took part with Edwards in the prosecution of the Epstein Actions sent an email to the staff and attorneys in RRA regarding depositions in the Epstein Actions On July Jenne sent an email to Edwards about the Epstein Actions On July Edwards sent an email to Adler stating that with the right moves we could force Epstein to settle for a lot of money On July Edwards sent an email to the Attorneys at RRA requesting a litigation meeting On July Priscila Nascimento one of the secretaries to Rothstein was advised of the scheduled meeting On July Cara Holmes an attorney at RRA working on the Epstein cases and a former agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation sent an email to Edwards stating that our best bet is to go after those close to Epstein In July Edwards and co-counsel Paul Cassell exchanged emails about their lack of proof on a previously-filed motion which claimed that Epstein was moving his assets to avoid paying any judgments that may be obtained by RRA clients against Epstein On August an email was sent from Rothstein to Mark Nurik Nurik an attorney at RRA regarding legal research on causes of action against Epstein On that same day Nurik sent an email to Rothstein regarding discussions about Epstein Also on August Adler sent an email to Rothstein regarding legal research on the causes of FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint actions against Epstein On August Edwards sent an email to RRA attorneys called litigation strategy regarding Epstein On August Edwards sent an email to Nurik regarding a legal opinion on the Epstein matter i In the month of August Edwards Jenne and Fisten exchanged emails on approximately four occasions discussing investigative techniques and other Epstein matters In the month of September emails were exchanged between Edwards and William Berger Berger a partner at RRA who also participated in the Epstein actions regarding Litigation Strategy On September Edwards sent an email to Elizabeth Villar a legal assistant to Rothstein about Epsteins alleged asset transfers and On September and again on September Edwards and Fisten exchanged emails on Epstein Litigation Strategy By August Edwards was aware that RRA offices were audio monitored and recorded including discussions on speakerphone Beginning in October the level of communications by and between Edwards and others including Rothstein described below increased dramatically as Rothstein was running out of money and was in search of new victims in order to continue to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme and coincided with Rothsteins efforts to get the investments for the Epstein actions concluded Those communications include FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint a From October to October emails were sent between Edwards and Berger Edwards and Fisten and Edwards and RRA attorneys regarding Epstein Litigation Strategy On October Edwards sent an email to Nurik on JEE Epstein Evidence During this same time frame Rothstein was exchanging emails with the investors for the Epstein cases telling them that if the investment was not made soon he would lose the client group to other lawyers During this same time frame specifically on or around October Kretschmar and Legamaro of the investor group were shown by Rothstein the actual case files ofRRA in the Epstein Actions The Epstein files were brought to the conference room by Fisten and Jenne During this same time frame on or around October A.J Discala a potential investor in the Epstein matters sent an email to Rothstein about the private placement memoranda for the investment On October the following events occurred a Edwards sent an email to book a conference room for as many attorneys as possible to attend a meeting on October on the Epstein Actions The email requested that Jenne Adler Berger Barry Stone Mike Wheeler Cara Holmes Rob Buschel Fisten Steve Jaffe and Nurik attend Nurik emailed Edwards about the meeting Edwards sent an email to Pat Diaz another investigator on the Epstein case regarding new developments which require your expertise FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint On October the following events occurred a Jenne sent an email to Rothstein advising him of an October meeting Rothstein emailed the investors that the Epstein client is going to another lawyer if the investment is not made right away Rothstein sent an email to Adler regarding causes of action against Epstein Adler sent an email to RRA attorneys on Epstein litigation strategy Edwards sent an email to RRA attorneys on Epstein litigation strategy Edwards sent an email to RRA attorneys regarding causes of action against Epstein Adler sent an email to Rothstein regarding causes of action against Epstein Rothstein sent to Legamaro counsel for the Investors an email regarding the causes of action against Epstein Based upon the foregoing Rothstein received information from Edwards and Adler regarding causes of action against Epstein and Rothstein then sent information regarding causes of action against Epstein to Legamaro counsel for the Investors for the purpose of obtaining funds for the Ponzi scheme Given the interdependence of so many RRA lawyers investigators and other staff and the wide communications that necessarily accompanied the involvement of so many people Edwards knew or should have known that his Epstein case files were being shown and touted to investors and that he was assisting and aiding Rothstein to close the deal with the FOWLER WlTE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint investors particularly where the magnitude of the potential settlements in the Epstein Actions was a key selling point In October Rothstein convinced investors to put up money to realize a substantial return emanating from the fraudulent settlement of the Epstein cases In November RRA collapsed and ultimately went into bankruptcy and Rothstein voluntarily relinquished his law license and was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court Subsequently Rothstein was arrested arraigned in federal court pied guilty and ultimately was sentenced to a 50-year prison sentence for fraud and racketeering based on an alleged billion Ponzi scheme designed among other things to infuse funds into RRA his own pockets and those of his cohorts The federal government called RRA a criminal enterprise COUNT I ABUSE OF PROCESS EDWARDS Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs through as if they were fully set forth here Edwards made illegal improper and perverted use of the civil process as follows a On September Edwards filed a state court action on behalf of client L.M against Edwards seeking damages On July Edwards sent an email to the Attorneys at RRA requesting a litigation meeting On July Edwards on behalf of client L.M filed a two hundred and thirty four page one hundred fifty-six count complaint against Epstein in U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida styled L.M Epstein Case Number 09-CIV However Edwards was never served The case was filed with a misspelling of Epsteins FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint last name so as not to alert the defendant that the case had been filed Each of the one hundred and fifty-six counts is a separate cause of action pursuant to U.S.C which provides a civil remedy authorizing damages of no less than per violation Thus Edwards sought total damages in excess of Twenty-Three Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars Edwards knew or should have known that highly-charged sexual allegations in that complaint that Epstein forced L.M to have oral sex with him were false Edwards client confirmed this fact in her deposition but Edwards never amended the complaint On or about October Attorney Legamaro and his client potential investor Thane Ritchie were shown Epstein case files at RRA for the purpose of obtaining Richies investment in the Epstein actions Epstein believes that the federal complaint in L.M Epstein was shown to Legamaro and Ritchie at that time and that it was prepared by Edwards with highly-charged sexual allegations solely to be shown to induce investment in the Epstein Actions and advance the Ponzi scheme as demonstrated by the fact that Edwards never served Epstein with a summons and complaint in that federal action which action was filed long after Edwards filed and served a state court civil action on behalf of L.M On or about October Edwards who had filed a state complaint against Epstein on behalf of E.W emailed Edwards assistant to file a federal complaint against Epstein on behalf of like the one Edwards had filed in federal court on behalf of L.M Edwards also made illegal improper and perverted use of the civil process in order to bolster the case to investors by utilizing it to conduct unreasonable and unnecessary discovery making unfounded allegations and engaging in improper motion practice including but not limited to FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint Deposing three airplane pilots employed by Epstein and seeking a deposition of a fourth pilot collectively the three were deposed for over twelve hours but were not asked a single question relating to any of the claims of Edwards clients Instead they were asked many inflammatory questions that had no legitimate legal purpose Noticing and subpoenaing for deposition the following people a Donald Trump a real estate investor and television personality Alan Dershowitz a renowned Harvard Law Professor and one of Epsteins criminal defense lawyers David Copperfield illusionist Individuals who had knowledge of Epsteins charitable political or other donations Taking the deposition of Mark Epstein brother of the Plaintiff but not asking any questions about Edwards clients Edwards targeted the foregoing individuals because they were close to Epstein not because they had any connection to or knowledge of the claims of Edwards clients Edwards intent was to harass Epsteins friends family and acquaintances Asking outrageous questions of the Plaintiff in depositions which had no legitimate bearing on the cases or the issues to be tried including questions regarding the size of his genitalia whether witnesses would leave their children alone with the Plaintiff Conducting irrelevant and meritless discovery by issuing a subpoena to obtain records from an alleged sex therapist Dr Leonard Baird in Massachusetts when issues relating to Epsteins mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint Directing and filing of Notices for the following health care professionals to produce medical records of Epstein when Epsteins mental and emotional state was not an issue in the case a Charles Galecki M.D Bruce Markowitz M.D and Steven Alexander Ph.D Directing and filing Notices to the following banks of Epstein Colonial Bank and Palm Beach National Bank to produce all financial records of Epstein allegedly for the purpose of obtaining records of payments by Epstein to the alleged victims knowing full well that the alleged victims testified to being paid in cash Directing and filing of Notices to obtain all records of Epsteins prescriptions and all other health related documents at two local pharmacies when no issues of Epsteins health had been raised in the Epstein Actions Edwards filed motions in the Epstein Actions attempting to plead a cause of action for RICO when there was no good faith basis for doing so and Edwards filed motions to freeze assets of Epstein without any evidence that Epstein was attempting to sequester or transfer assets and prior to Edwards obtaining a judgment against Epstein Ultimately the federal district court found the motion was entirely devoid of evidence of Defendants Epstein alleged transfers Edwards had ulterior motives for making these improper uses of civil process which included among others maintaining a Ponzi scheme FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint obtaining funds for the continued investigation and prosecution of the Epstein Actions obtaining operating revenue so that RRA could continue to operate As a result of the above the Plaintiff has suffered damages by incurring additional and unnecessary attorneys fees and costs to defend these abuses of process WHEREFORE the Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein demands a trial by jury a judgment against Defendant Bradley Edwards for compensatory damages interest costs of this action and any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court COUNT II CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ABUSE OF PROCESS ROTHSTEIN Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs through and through as if they were fully set forth herein Rothstein conspired and entered into an express or implied agreement to engage in the tort of abuse of process as part of a plan to defraud investors and further the Ponzi scheme Rothstein knew or should have known of Edwards efforts to make illegal improper and perverted use of the civil process The actions described in paragraphs through and through constitute overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy As a member of the conspiracy Rothstein is liable for the acts described herein As a result of the conspiracy Epstein has been damaged by incurring additional and unnecessary attorneys fees and costs and the cost of installing an enhanced security system and retention of security personnel for the safety of Epstein and to protect his property FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint WHEREFORE the Plaintiff Jeffrey Epstein demands a trial by jury a judgment against the Defendant Scott Rothstein for compensatory damages costs interest and any and other relief deemed appropriate by this Court CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been duly furnished via Email and U.S Mail this 22nd day of August Jack Scarola Esq Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley A Palm Beach Lakes Blvd P.O Drawer West Palm Beach FL Jack Alan Goldberger Esq Atterbury Goldberger Weiss P.A Australian A venue South Suite West Palm Beach FL Marc Nurik Esq Law Offices of Marc Nurik One Broward Blvd Suite Ft Lauderdale FL Martin Weinberg Esq Martin Weinberg P.A Park Plaza Suite Suffolk MA FOWLER WHITE Epstein Rothstein Edwards Case No Second Amended Complaint Respectfully submitted J7 ti 3St/.J;z Joseph Ackerman Jr Fla Bar No FOWLER WHITE 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 i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD d6h N?M 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
