Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
FLORIDA
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG
vs.
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually,
BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
The undersigned, Jeffrey E. Epstein, having first been duly sworn, hereby deposes
and says:
I.
I am over eighteen (18) years old and have personal knowledge of the facts
stated herein.
2.
I am the Counter-Defendant in the above captioned action (the "Action")
and submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary
Judgment Motion") with respect to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim (the
"Counterclaim") of Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards").
3.
In the Counterclaim Edwards has asserted unsupported claims against me
for Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution.
4.
As more fully described below, at the time that I commenced the Action
against Edwards and Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") in December 2009, I had a good faith
1
EFTA_R1_00008495
EFTA01733722
basis for filing the same, based on the facts that existed at the time I filed suit, as set forth
below and more fully in my Summary Judgment Motion.
5.
I filed the Action against Rothstein and Edwards because, based on the
facts described below and in the Summary Judgment Motion, I believed at the time of
filing my original Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of
theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a
widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law Finn (the "Ponzi
Scheme") that featured the very civil cases litigated against me by Edwards, which were
being used to defraud potential investors in the Ponzi Scheme.
6.
In early November 2009, stories in the press, on the news, and on the
intemet were legion about the implosion of RRA, the Ponzi Scheme perpetrated at that
firm, and the misuse in the Ponzi Scheme of certain civil cases then being litigated against
me by RRA partner, Edwards. The cases Edwards was litigating against me, which are
described in the Summary Judgment Motion (the "Epstein Cases"), were being used to
defraud investors out of millions of dollars and to fund the RRA Ponzi Scheme.
7.
In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of
the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-
half of the attorneys employed by RRA.
8.
At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the
law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others,
Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19)
(hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi
Scheme investors.
2
E FTA_R1_00008496
EFTA01733723
9.
Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback
Complaint detailed the use of the Epstein Cases (i.e., the cases being litigated against me
by Edwards) to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme; including, but not limited to,
improper discovery practices and other methods to bolster the cases.
10.
Prior to my filing the initial Complaint in the Action, I also became aware
that the Federal government filed an Information against Scott Rothstein, which included
allegations of RRA as an "Enterprise" in which Rothstein and his yet unidentified co-
conspirators engaged in a racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, mail and
wire fraud conspiracy, and wire fraud, and specifically alleged that (a) potential investors
were told by Rothstein and other co-conspirators that confidential settlement agreements
were available for purchase; (b) settlements were allegedly available in amounts ranging
from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars and could be purchased at a
discount and repaid to the investors at face value over time; (c) Rothstein and other co-
conspirators utilized the offices of RRA and the offices of other co-conspirators to
convince potential investors of the legitimacy and success of the law firm, which enhanced
the credibility of the purported investment opportunity; (d) Rothstein and other co-
conspirators utilized funds obtained through the Ponzi Scheme to supplement and support
the operation and activities of RRA, to expand RRA by the hiring of additional attorneys
and support staff, to fund salaries and bonuses, and to acquire larger and more elaborate
office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed
by and associated with the RRA Enterprise.
3
E FTA_R1_00008497
EFTA01733724
11.
Prior to filing the initial Complaint in the Action, consistent with the
allegations made by the press, in the Razorback Complaint, and in the Rothstein
Information, it was clear that the activity in the Epstein Cases being litigated by Edwards
intensified substantially during the short six (6) months during which Edwards was a
partner at RRA from April 2009 through the end of October 2009. Furthermore, during
that six (6)-month period, questionable discovery like that detailed in the Razorback
Complaint had taken place in the Epstein Cases being litigated against me by Edwards,
including Edwards noticing the depositions of famous dignitaries and celebrities such as
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection
whatsoever to any claims of misconduct made by Edwards's clients.
12.
Equally consistent with the allegations in the press and in the Razorback
Complaint that the Epstein Cases were being deliberately misused for purposes unrelated
to the litigation in order to lure investors into the Ponzi Scheme is the fact that on July 24,
2009, Edwards filed a two hundred thirty-four (234) page, one fifty-six (156) count federal
complaint against me on behalf of a plaintiff, LM, for whom Edwards was already
prosecuting a case against me in state court involving the very same facts alleged in the
federal complaint. The complaint was filed in federal court, but was never served on me or
prosecuted, leading me to conclude that the only reason it was filed was to enhance the
case files shown at the offices of RRA to potential investors in the Ponzi Scheme.
13.
Also while a partner at RRA, Edwards filed a motion in Federal court in
which he requested that the court order me to post a fifteen million dollar bond in the Jane
Doe case. This case, according to the Razorback Complaint, was being touted at that same
time to investors in the Ponzi Scheme. In connection with that motion, Edwards filed papers
4
E FTA_R1_00008498
EFTA01733725
discussing my net worth and filed supplemental papers purporting to list in great detail my
vehicles, planes and other items of substantial value, all at a time when, according to the
accounts in the press, the Information and the Razorback Complaint, the Ponzi Scheme was
unraveling and the need for new investors in the Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. The
court rejected the Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence."
14.
The facts set forth above and in the Summary Judgment Motion were the
facts upon which I relied in (a) determining that I had incurred damages, such as attorneys
fees and disbursements paid to defend against these actions which appeared to be
unrelated to the underlying litigation against me, and (b) asserting my causes of action
against Edwards and Rothstein in the Action.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
)
) ss.:
Sworn and subscribed to before me, the undersigned authority, by Jeffrey Epstein,
this 25" day of September, 2013.
NOTARY PUBLIC
5
E FTA_R1_00008499
EFTA01733726