WESIBALKELEACNSEISM:

WESIBALKELEACNSEISM: 2139 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD. WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33409 P.O. BCOC 3626 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 Spanish ATTORNEYS AT UN ROSALYN RN BAKEREMEES GREGOEY BAR TART T. HAMER BASS. NI WIRE /DREGS MAN R. CEMEY iani.L. omen a' GOSH S. RIMER JAMES W. OUSTAFSON.JR. JACK P. HU DAVID IC. NEUF; a. WILLIAM a Km' DARREL L. MO •WILIMJA A. NORTON PATRICK E. OUNARI EDWARD V. RICO 'JOHN SCARPS 'CHRISTIAN D. SEARCY 'JOHN A. INPUT SI ONISTO/HER K. SPEED TE BRIAR ENEMY. IM NAP EMMY 'C. CALVE INNING • SHARBIOWERS 'INDARD CENTENO 6ilirc araW imam hmus() assicaiusetra • aussissism T HEW HANTSHIRE 'NEW JERSEY 'mama .WASIONCITON DC PARALEGAL& MAN RONTEJEDA RANDY IA DUFREME DAVID W. AMORE J0_C HOPIONS DEBORAH IL KNAPP VINCENT L Lammas JR. JAMES PETER LOVE ROBERT W. PITCHER MARK P PONY IMINEEN SIMON STEVE IA SMITH SOME S. STARK WALTER/. STEIN SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART ter-SHIPLEY. VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL June 17, 2011 Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esquire Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 S Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6170 DIALLANASSEESEIn 1HE TOWLE HOUSE 517 NORTH CALHOUN STREET TALLAHASSEE. FL 32301.1231 P.O. BCD 1230 TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302 Re: Edwards adv. Epstein Our File No.: 291874 Dear Joe: Although there is no obligation to respond to your voluntary response to our invocation of the provisions of F.S. §57.105, I cannot resist the urge to do so. The claims against Bradley Edwards were a blatant effort at intimidation when they were filed by your predecessor counsel—a fact they apparently found the courage to recognize leading to their withdrawal. The claims had no good faith basis when originally filed, they have no good faith basis now, and your letter of June 16 only serves to confirm your recognition that you are on a fishing expedition designed to harass Mr. Edwards while you search to piece together fragments of suspicion into a cover for Mr. Epstein's misconduct. Scott Rothstein's crimes are not a substitute for evidence against Bradley Edwards. The complicity of others in Rothstein's crimes is not a substitute for evidence against Bradley Edwards. The damage sustained by the victim's of Rothstein's crimes is not a substitute for evidence that Epstein was damaged by Bradley Edwards beyond Epstein's self-inflicted damage of being obliged to pay for his own aberrant victimization of children. You have no viable theory of damages. You have no evidence of any act on the part of Bradley Edwards other than the vigorous and successful prosecution of legitimate claims on behalf of his clients. You have no basis for seeking to prosecute affirmative WWW.SEARCYLAW.COM EFTA01120028 Edwards adv. Epstein Joseph L. Ackerman, Esquire June 17, 2011 Page 2 claims while your client attempts to hide behind the shield of the Fifth Amendment. You have no excuse for persisting in the assertion of the right to remain silent in the context of this litigation while your client is shooting his mouth off with self-serving public statements and not-so-private threats. As to your comments regarding discovery, the disclosure of documents to others (in the context of a confidentiality agreement that recognizes common interests) proves that Bradley Edwards has nothing to hide from anyone. However, Mr. Epstein is a vicious, unscrupulous, filthy rich adversary who cannot and will not be trusted with anything except that which the law entitles him to have when and only when the law says he is entitled to get it. You and your firm have been seduced by Mr. Epstein's nearly limitless resources and ensnared in his very dirty web. Fortunately for you, you have the power to break free if you choose to. EFTA01120029