Filing Electronically Filed PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Counter-Defendant vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEINS OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December Jeffrey Epstein Epstein filed suit against Scott Rothstein Rothstein and Bradley Edwards Edwards In response to Epsteins lawsuit Edwards filed a Counterclaim alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein abuse of process and malicious prosecution Both causes of action were premised upon Epsteins initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the litigation privilege Epsteins Motion was argued before this Court on January at which time this Court after extensive argument and review of all written submissions and case law granted Epsteins Motion Days later Edwards filed a Motion for Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Fort Lauderdale FL 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 y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 Reconsideration Three months later Edwards has filed this purported supplemental authority in support of his initial Motion for Reconsideration However this supplemental authority does nothing more than establish the fact that another trial court just as this Court did in the case at hand properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe Foreman Fla Weekly July Accordingly with no change in the law or facts since the Courts original ruling and with Edwards simply restating his disagreement with this Courts findings this filing of supplemental authority is wholly inappropriate In fact this supplemental authority contains no new or additional authority at all Rather it is a mere recitation of the contentions submitted by Edwards in his original Motion being argued by another attorney which is in no way binding upon this Court Accordingly the Court should not entertain this supplemental authority submitted by Edwards ARGUMENT Edwards despite his interminable filings has not identified one Florida case decided either after the Wolfe decision or the above-referenced Florida Supreme Court cases upon which the Wolfe court relied in rendering its ruling that establishes that this Court erred Nor does his supplemental authority Instead of accepting the Courts ruling Edwards invites this Court to hold that the Third District Court of Appeal committed error in Wolfe The Florida Supreme Court however stated unequivocally that a trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision of an appellate court See System Components FDOT So 3d Fla see also State ex rel Reynolds White So There is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact or its Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Fort Lauderdale FL interpretation of the law If so litigation would be interminable the superior would be subordinated to the inferior and the judgments of the superior could only be enforced when they coincided with the judgments of the inferior In Systems Components the Florida Supreme Court found that it was improper for a party to do what Edwards seeks to do in the case at hand argue that the Court ignore appellate court precedent Id at This Court correctly recognized that at the Summary Judgment hearing See Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment hearing lines CONCLUSION WHEREFORE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respectfully requests that this Court disregard the supplemental authority submitted by Edwards WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic service to all parties on the attached service list this May Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Haddad Coleman Esq Florida Bar No Tonja Haddad PA SE th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida facsimile Attorneys for Epstein Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Fort Lauderdale FL SERVICE LIST CASE NO Jack Scarola Esq sx searcy law com mep searcylaw.com Searcy Denney Scarola et al Palm Beach Lakes Blvd West Palm Beach FL Jack Goldberger Esq goldberger agwpa.com smahoney agwpa.com Atterbury Goldberger Weiss PA Australian Ave South Suite West Palm Beach FL Marc urik Esq East Broward Blvd Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Bradley Edwards Esq brad pathtojustice.com staff.efile pathtojustice.com Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman Andrews Avenue Suite Fort Lauderdale Florida Fred Haddad Esq Dee FredHaddadLaw.com Financial Plaza Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Tonja Haddad Coleman Esquire Tonja tonjahaddad.com efiling tonjahaddad.com Law Offices of Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale FL Chester Brewer Jr cblaw aol.com wcbcg aol.com Chester Brewer Jr P.A Australian A venue Suite West Palm Beach FL Tonja Haddad P.A SE 7th Street Fort Lauderdale FL
