EFTA01120028.pdf

SEARCY DENNEY WESIBALKELEACNSEISM: SCAROLA DIALLANASSEESEIn 2139 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD. WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33409 BARNHART 1HE TOWLE HOUSE 517 NORTH CALHOUN STREET TALLAHASSEE. FL 32301.1231 P.O. BCOC 3626 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 ter-SHIPLEY. P.O. BCD 1230 TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302 Spanish VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL ATTORNEYS AT UN June 17, 2011 ROSALYN RN BAKEREMEES GREGOEY BAR TART T. HAMER BASS. NI Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esquire WIRE /DREGS MANR. CEMEY Fowler White Burnett, P.A. iani.L.omena' GOSH S.RIMER 901 Phillips Point West JAMES W. OUSTAFSON.JR. JACK P.HU 777 S Flagler Drive DAVID IC. NEUF; a. WILLIAM a Km' DARREL L. MO West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6170 •WILIMJA A. NORTON PATRICK E. OUNARI EDWARD V. RICO 'JOHN SCARPS Re: Edwards adv. Epstein 'CHRISTIAN D. SEARCY 'JOHN A. INPUT SI Our File No.: 291874 ONISTO/HER K. SPEED TE BRIAR ENEMY.IM NAP EMMY 'C. CALVEINNING • Dear Joe: SHARBIOWERS 'INDARD CENTENO Although there is no obligation to respond to your voluntary response to our 6ilirc araW imam invocation of the provisions of F.S. §57.105, I cannot resist the urge to do so. hmus() assicaiusetra • aussissism T HEW HANTSHIRE The claims against Bradley Edwards were a blatant effort at intimidation when they 'NEW JERSEY were filed by your predecessor counsel—a fact they apparently found the courage to 'mama .WASIONCITON DC recognize leading to their withdrawal. The claims had no good faith basis when PARALEGAL& originally filed, they have no good faith basis now, and your letter of June 16 only MANRONTEJEDA RANDY IA DUFREME serves to confirm your recognition that you are on a fishing expedition designed to DAVID W. AMORE J0_C HOPIONS harass Mr. Edwards while you search to piece together fragments of suspicion into a DEBORAHIL KNAPP VINCENT L Lammas JR. JAMES PETER LOVE cover for Mr. Epstein's misconduct. ROBERT W. PITCHER MARK P PONY IMINEEN SIMON STEVE IA SMITH Scott Rothstein's crimes are not a substitute for evidence against Bradley Edwards. SOME S. STARK WALTER/. STEIN 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