EFTA01103261.pdf

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.1201 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this his answer to the Counterclaim and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. Admit. 3. Deny. 4. Epstein admits that he is a convicted felon having entered into a Plea Agreement with the State of Florida. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 4, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's EFTA01103261 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 2 claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 5. Epstein admits he has been sued civilly by a number of individuals, and admits that a number of cases have been settled and other cases remain pending. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph 5, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); ,Mallov v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Sell Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 6. Epstein admits that he has asserted his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination as well as other constitutional rights. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph EFTA01103262 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 3 6, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ, 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination), because affinnative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 7. Epstein admits that Edwards has clients prosecuting claims against him. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 7, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self- Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific EFTA01103263 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 4 denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 8. Epstein denies that Edwards has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or improper conduct and further denies that Edwards has not taken action inconsistent with the representation of his clients. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 8, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court"); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 9. Epstein denies that he had filed this cause of action to intimidate anyone into abandoning and/or settling any claims that have been made against Epstein. As to the remaining EFTA01103264 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 5 allegations in paragraph 9, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Lis. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4m DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny - Privilege Against Self Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. — "... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief' which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 10. The complaint is the best evidence of the allegations asserted by the Plaintiff, Epstein, and Epstein denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Epstein denies any ulterior motive, purpose or any illegal, improper or perverted use of process, and further denies the allegation regarding his "real purpose" relative to Edwards and L.M. As to the remaining allegations in paragraph 11, Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)- Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self- Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - lilt would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a EFTA01103265 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 6 claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); 5 Fed.Prac. & Proc. Civ. 3d §1280 Effect of Failure to Deny — Privilege Against Self-Incrimination ("...court must treat the defendant's claim of privilege as equivalent to a specific denial."). See also 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence §592. Defendants in civil actions. —"... a civil defendant who raises an affirmative defense is not precluded from asserting the privilege [against self-incrimination], because affirmative defenses do not constitute the kind of voluntary application for affirmative relief" which would prevent a plaintiff bringing a claim seeking affirmative relief from asserting the privilege. 12. Deny. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. First Affirmative Defense — Edwards fails to state a cause of action for abuse of process. Edwards has failed to allege any misuse of process after the instant lawsuit was filed and served. Accordingly, Edwards has failed to state a cause of action for abuse of process and his Counterclaim must therefore be dismissed. 2. Second Affirmative Defense — To the extent Edwards claims Epstein's lawsuit/acts are tortuous in nature, the litigation privilege is an absolute immunity that covers both defamatory statements and other tortuous behavior during a judicial proceeding. EFTA01103266 Epstein v. Rothstein Page 7 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 15th day of March 2010: MARC S. NURIK, ESQ. Gary M. Fanner, Jr., Esq. Law Offices of Mark S. Nurik Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & One East Broward Boulevard Lehrman, PL Suite 700 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-745-5849 9545242820 954-745-3556 Fax 954-524-2822 - Fax Attorneysfor Defendant Scott Rothstein Attorneysfor Defendant, L.M. Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. P.A 250 Australian Avenue South 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 686-6300 Fax: 561-835-8691 383-9424 F Co-Counselfor Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Attorneysfor Defendant Bradley Edwards BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Boulevard Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 (561) 842-2 (561) 253-0 By: Ro Critton, Jr. Flon a #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 EFTA01103267