DS9 Document EFTA01122902

NM= IMI 001/013 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXlvIBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and •., individually, Defendant, THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM Bradley J. Edwards (EDWARDS) sues Jeffrey Epstein (EPSTEIN) and alleges: COUNT I—ABUSE OF PROCESS 1. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum juriSdietional limits of this Court. 2. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, and is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto. 3. Counter/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of female children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal laws. EFTA01122902 SAM • x002/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 2 of 13 5. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children including victims represented by EDWARDS. 6. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his IFifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refined to answer any substantive qu4tions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extitiordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel intd abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their just value. 7. In some circumstances, EPSTEIN's tactics have proven successful, while other victims have thus far withstood this continued assault upon them and persisted in the prosecution of their claims. EDWARDS' clients are among those who continued the prosecution of their claims and the assertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). EFTA01122903 NM • a003/013 Echolards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXVIBAG Thilid Amended Counterclaim Page 3 of 13 not 8. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, EDWARD$ has engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe .1 otherwise. 9, Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS' client, M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against EDWARDS was never the stathd purpose of collecting money damages from EDWARDS since EPSTEIN knew that he had nets suffered any damage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by EDWARDS. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded to rosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prosecution of EDWARDS' legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require EDWARDS to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass EDWARDS and impugn his integrity, and deter others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on EDTvVARDS, M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege. in 10. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward EDWARDS and others, and he had ult 'or motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S EFTA01122904 MAM 14:19 a004/013 Ethiards adv. Epstein Case No.. 502009CA040800XXXXWMAG Thipd Amended Counterclaim Page 4 of 13 priniary purpose in both filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against EDWARDS was to inflict a maximum economic burden on EDWARDS in having to defend against the spurious claims, to distract EDWARDS from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPSTEN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort EDWARDS into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against EDWARDS. 11. The claims flied by EPSTEIN against EDWARDS included the following: a. violation of F.S. §§772.101, et. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act; b. Florida RICO—"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" pursuant to F.S. §§895.01, et. seq.; c. abuse of process; d. fraud; e. conspiracy to commit fraud. 12. EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that EDWARDS was a knowing participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual su rt for his spurious allegations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for I his claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation f of a civil theft claim. EFTA01122905 14:19 00057013 Edviards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA0408C0XxxxmBAG Thitd Amended Counterclaim Pagi 5 of 13 13. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his failed prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful conclusion because: a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they were true; b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of EDWARDS; c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that would be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they had any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be barred by the sword-shield doctrine; d. EDWARDS' conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against EDWARDS because of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege. 14. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward EDWARDS and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously detAiled in Paragraph 9. 15. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against EDWARDS recklessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as EFTA01122906 ni= 14:19 MI DENNEY O006/013 Edv1ards adv. Epstein Cas No.: 502009CA040800XXXLMBAC Third Amended Counterclaim PagO 6 of 13 his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims. 16. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of evelry claim against EDWARDS, every motion, every request for production, every subpoena issued, and every deposition taken as detailed on the docket sheet was intended with respect to EDWARDS solely and exclusively to advance EPSTEIN'S efforts at extortion as previously detailed, and constituted a perversion of process after its initial service. 17. As a result of EPSTEIN's wrongful conduct as alleged, EDWARDS has suffered and will continue to suffer the following special damages: a. injury to his reputation; b. mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; c. fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family; d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities; e. the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTELNI for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circinstanoes. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive darnages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. • Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. EFTA01122907 Eldn. 14:20- ® 0077013 Edvkards adv. Epstein Cosi No.: 502009CA040800X.XXXMBAG Thy Amended Counterclaim Page 7 of 13 1 COUNT II-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 18. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 19. Couriter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, andl is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Florida at all times material hereto. 20. Counter/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, Flo ida • il• EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of femle children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal laws. 1 against him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agelicies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molestation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the potential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and punitive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children inclUding victims represented by EDWARDS. 23. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted 22. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive EFTA01122908 14:20 El tal 0U Villa Ed,laards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXN1BAG Third Amended Counterclaim Paie 8 of IS • defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liability and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extraordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their just value. not 24. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, EDWARDS has engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action I inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has.no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise. 25. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS' .1 client, M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable vahic. His sole purpose in filing claims against EDWARDS was never the stated purpose of colliecting money damages from EDWARDS since EPSTEIN knew that he had never suffered any Idamage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by EDWARDS. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prosecution of EDWARDS' legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require EDWARDS to expend time, energy and resources on his own defense, to embarrass EDWARDS and impugn his integrity, and deter others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having EFTA01122909 14:20. tal UVW/111J Edi:vards adv. Epstein Cntie No.: 502009CA040800XMOCNCSAG ll&d Amended Counterclaim Page 9 of 13 to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on EDWARDS, and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press release issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege. 26. EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward EDWARDS and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S primary purpose in filing each of the claims against EDWARDS was to inflict a maximum economic burden on EDWARDS in having to defend against the spurious claims, to distract EDWARDS from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort EDWARDS into abandoning the claims he was protecuting against EDWARDS. 27. The claims filed by EPSTEIN against EDWARDS were the following: a. violation of F.S. §§772.101, et. seq.— Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act; b. Florida RICO--"Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" pursuant to F.S. §§895.01, et. seq.; c. abuse of process; d. fraud; e. conspiracy to commit fraud. 28. EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that EDWARDS was a knowing path ipant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise and that he had conspired to and did engage in a finlud against EPSTEIN when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no EFTA01122910 Et= 14 :III MI tal U10 Ul Edwards adv. Epstein Ca.4e No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 10 of 13 evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speculation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious all4gations. Indicative of his total disregard for the lack of any predicate for his claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim. 29. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his fail prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful conclusion because: a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or suspicion that they were true; b. he had suffered no legally cognizable injury proximately caused by the falsely alleged wrongdoing on the part of EDWARDS; c. he had no intention of waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination in order to provide the relevant and material discovery that would be necessary in the course of prosecuting the claims, (even if they had any reasonable basis), and he knew that his prosecution would consequently be bared by the sword-shield doctrine; d. EDWARDS' conduct in the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN could not support the prosecution of a separate civil lawsuit against EDWARDS because of the absolute protection of the litigation privilege. EFTA01122911 OM 14:E El 0011/U13 Edtards adv. Epstein Caie No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG nerd Amended Counterclaim Page 1 l of 13 30. EPSTEIN acted purely. out of malice toward EDWARDS and others, and he had ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously det ilcd in Paragraph 25. 31. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against EDWARDS recklessly and purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meritorious claims. 32. After unsuccessful efforts to defend and amend his maliciously filed and prosecuted claims over a period of almost two years, EPSTEIN abandoned each of the claims described in Paragraph 27 except for an ongoing effort to salvage his abuse of process claim. That abandonment brings to successful conclusion EDWARDS' defense against each of the other abandoned claims and constitutes a specific bona fide termination in EDWARDS' favor of therprior prosecution of each abandoned claim. I 33. As a result of EPSTEIN's wrongful conduct as alleged, EDWARDS has suffered and will continue to suffer the following special damages: a. injury to his reputation; b. mental anguish, embarrassment and anxiety; c. fear of physical injury to himself and members of his family; d. the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities; e. the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims. EFTA01122912 OM 14:E • lig 0127013 Ed'ards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CM140800)ODOCMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 12 of 13 WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive damages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by and U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached li I. :1 I Asf—day of May, JACK OLA Flon ar No.: 169440 Sc. Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard est Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 II: (561) 383-9451 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA01122913 05/UI 14:22 MI 4013/013 Edwards adv. Epstein le No.: 502009CA0408003OOOC.MBAG Thi Amended Counterclaim P e 13 of 13 COUNSEL LIST Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire Faamer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos 42S North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fmk Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phcipne: (954) 524-2820 Fa4: (954) 524-2822 Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Attbrbury, Goldberger & Weiss, 25d Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 WeSt Palm Beach, FL 33401 Pho'ne: (561) 659-8300 ■ (561) 835-8691 Mdc S. Nurik, Esquire One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Foil Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phite: (954) 745-5849 Fax (954) 745-3556 To4ja Haddad Coleman, Esquire Lalii Offices of Tonja Haddad,'" 5241S Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Forl Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 467-1223 ■:' (954) 337-3716 Lill' Ann Sanchez, Esquire Thet-S Law Firm 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 503-5503 Fail (305) 503-6801 EFTA01122914