EFTA01104669.pdf

05/21/2012 14:13 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 0001/013 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and Ng, 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 jurisdictional 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 EFTA01104669 05/21/2012 14:13 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY la 002/013 EdwLds adv. Epstein Casc4 No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thirli 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 age;Icies 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 Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive quebtions 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 I liaSlity and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the . extuordmary 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. 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 a setertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Criine Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). EFTA01104670 05/21/2012 14:14 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DEN10EY O003/013 Ed4ards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800YJOCXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 3 of 13 8. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, EDWARDS has not, 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 hall no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise, 9. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS' client, M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, II., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable valne. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against EDWARDS was never the statid purpose of collecting money damages from EDWARDS since EPSTEIN knew that he had never 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 EPSTEN, 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 EDWARDS, 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. 10. 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 EFTA01104671 05/21/2012 14:14 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 10004/013 Edvjards adv. Epstein Cast No.: 502009CA040800XXXX3/113AG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 4 of 13 primary 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 EPSTEIN'S serial abuse of minors, and ultimately to extort EDWARDS into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against EDWARDS. 11. The claims filed 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 support for his spurious allegations. 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. EFTA01104672 05/21/2012 14:14 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY D005/013 Edwiards adv. Epstein Cas4 No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thiril Amended Counteiclann Page 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; 111 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. 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 p sely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as EFTA01104673 05/21/2012 14:15 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 0006/018 Edwards adv. Epstein Cass No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thiid Amended Counterclaim Rag66 of 13 his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be meiitorious claims. 16. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of every 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 EPSTEN's spurious and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory 1 daMages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the cir4imstances. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive darriages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. EFTA01104674 05/21/2012 14:15 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY l 007/013 Ed 'ands adv. Epstein Cas No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Pagk 7 of 13 COUNT 1I-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 18. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court 19. 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. 20. Counter/defendant, EPSTEIN, is sui juris and is a resident of Palm Beach County, 21. 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. 22. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases aganst 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 puditive 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 his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive qu ions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive EFTA01104675 05/11/2012 14:15 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY ®008.013 Edviardsadv.Epstein CaseNo.: 502009CA040800XXXXNO3AG Amended Counterclaim Pag SofB 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. 24. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, EDWARDS has not engaged in any unethical, illegal, or proper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN has In° reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe otherwise. 25. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN fi d civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS' client, for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, and others into abandoning or settling their 1 gitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable valik. His sole purpose in filing claims against EDWARDS was never the stated purpose of collecting 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 lcnoWingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded to prosecute thode baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prosecution of ED1VARDS' 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 I others with legitimate claims against EPSTEIN from pursuing those claims at the risk of having • EFTA01104676 05/21/2012 14:16 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY I45009/013 Edh•ards adv. Epstein Casp No.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMSAG Third Amended Counteklaim Pat 9 of 13 to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on EDWARDS, an4 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 ult for 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 probecuting 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 pariiicipant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise and that he had conspired to and did engage in a ud against EPSTEIN when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no EFTA01104677 OS/21/2012 14:16 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY O010/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Cast 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thir,d Counterclaim Pagi 10 of 13 evidence whatsoever to support such false assertions. Indeed, his Complaint was replete with speoulation, conjecture, and innuendo and was entirely devoid of factual support for his spurious 1 allegations. 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 failed prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful •I coriClusion because: .1 a. they were both false and unsupported by any reasonable belief or I 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. EFTA01104678 05/21/2012 14:16 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY Ul U1U Edwards adv. Epstein CaAe No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMERG Thikx1 Amended Counterclaim Page 11 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 detiriled 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 1. meitorious 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 the prior prosecution of each abandoned claim. • 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. EFTA01104679 05/21/2012 14:17 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY O012/013 Eth ands adv. Epstein Cas No.: 502009CA040800XXXXVISAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 12 of 13 dal! WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory ages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the cirdumstances. 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. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy thc foregoing has been furnished by off Fax and U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached li I 44.--day of May, 2012. JACK OLA Flori ar No.: 169440 Se Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard est Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA01104680 05/21/2012 14:17 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 10013/013 &Muds adv. Epstein Cash No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thirid Amended Counterclaim Page 13 of 13 COUNSEL LIST Br- • ey J. Edwards, Esquire F er, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos 42 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Jac A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterb l ury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 2501Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Mak S. Nurik, Esquire One B Broward Blvd., Suite 700 La Toi4a Haddad Coleman, Esquire La* Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. 524 S Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esquire ThelL-S Law Firm 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami FL 33131 EFTA01104681