EFTA00283047.pdf

11/2$/2011 15:98 FAX 5816845818 SEARCY DENNEY a001/013 VS.• Y EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, TT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BR 4 DLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L ., individually, Defendant, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXivIBAG SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM Bradley I. Edwards (EDWARDS) sues Jeffrey Epstein (EPSTEIN) and alleges: COUNT I-ABUSE OF PROCESS I. 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, Flottida. 4. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to whi h he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of le children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal law EFTA00283047 11/29/2011 15:38 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY Q002/013 Edvs rds adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim Pag 2 of 13 5. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases aga nst him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agecies 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 1p otential of further criminal prosecution and huge civil judgments for both compensatory and pu tive damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children 4 inc ding victims represented by EDWARDS. 6. In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted his ifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive que lions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive def nse to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liab lity and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the ex ordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel int J 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 vict ms have thus far withstood this continued assault unnn them and nersisteil in stuturoer.ntitin claims and the assertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crir e Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). EFTA00283048 11/29/2011 15:39 FAX 5818845816 SEARCY DENNEY 12003/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second 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 has no reasonable basis to believe otherwise and has never had any reasonable basis to believe 1 oth rwise. 9. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS' clieLt, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable valtke. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against EDWARDS was never the stattd purpose of collecting money damages from EDWARDS since EPSTEIN knew that he had nev r suffered any damage as a consequence of any wrongdoing by EDWARDS. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded .1 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 exp nd 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 l•isk of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN's real purpose was to put pressure on ED ARDS, L.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 ulte lor motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN'S EFTA00283049 11/29/2011 15:39 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 1 004/013 Eduiards adv. Epstein Cast No.: 5020090.040800NDMNSI/05 Second Amended Counterclaim Fag& 4 of 13 priinary purpose in both filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against ED WARDS was to inflict a maximum economic burden on EDWARDS in having to defend aga nst 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 intj abandoning the claims be was prosecuting against EDWARDS. 11. The claims filed by EPSTEIN against EDWARDS included the following: a. violation of RS. §§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 pa4 cipant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was antis 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 EFTA00283050 11/29/2011 15:40 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY Qms/013 Edviarcls adv. Epstein Cast No.: 50200YCA040800XVOCMEAG Second Amended Counterclaim 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; 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 ulte 1 lior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously dialled 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 EFTA00283051 11/29/2011 15:40 FAX 5816845816 SEARCY DENNEY a1006/013 Ed ards adv. Epstein Cas No.: 502009CA040800XXXICvfBAC Sec nd Amended Counterclaim Ng 6 of 13 his primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be me "torious claims. 16. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of ev claim against EDWARDS, every motion, every request for production, every subpoena i ed, and every deposition taken as detailed on the docket sheet attached as Exhibit A was siry intdnded 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 an will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to injury to his reputation, int rference in his professional relationships, the loss of the value of his time required to be il diverted from his professional responsibilities, and the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spurious and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory da ges, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the ei unistances. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive 1 da ages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. COUNT II-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 18. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jut'L dictional limits of this Court. EFTA00283052 11/29/2011 15:40 FAX 5016845816 SEARCY DENNEY Qh007/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Cast, No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Sect nd Amended Counterclaim Pagt• 7 of 13 19. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, an 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, da. 21. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to wh h he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of fe le children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal Flo 22. EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases aga nst him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement agencies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN'S serial abuse and molLstation of children; others remain pending. As a consequence, EPSTEIN continues to face the' p otential 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 his IF (Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive queitions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive def nse to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive 1 liab lity and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the extrkordinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel EFTA00283053 11/29/2011 15:41 FAX 5616845818 SEARCY DENNEY 21009/013 i Ed aids adv. Epstein Casf No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMEAG Sec nd Amended Counterclaim f Pas 8 of 13 into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their jusil value. 24. 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 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' cliT t, L.M. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, L.M., and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value. His sole purpose in filing claims against EDWARDS was never the stated purpose of col cling 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 knOr ingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prosecution of ED ARDS' 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 EDWARDS, L.M., and rel other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly defamatory press se issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege. EFTA00283054 11/29/2011 15:41 FAX 5615845816 SEARCY DENNEY Q009/013 &tiaras adv. Epstein Cast No.: 502009CA040800>DCONEAG Second Amended Counterclaim Pal 9 of 13 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 pri ary purpose in filing each of the claims against EDWARDS was to inflict a maximum eco omit burden on EDWARDS in having to defend against the spurious claims, to distract ED ARDS from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPSTEIN'S serial abu e of minors, and ultimately to extort EDWARDS into abandoning the claims he was prosecuting 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 participant in a civil theft and criminal enterprise and that he had conspired to and did engage in a fdud against EPSTEIN 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 spec ulation, 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, EFTA00283055 11/29/2011 15:41 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY e010/013 Ed' ands adv. Epstein No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Sec nd Amended Counterclaim Pa 10 of 13 EP TEN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil h the claim. L 29. EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his fai I d 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. 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 detailed in Paragraph 25. EFTA00283056 11/29/2011 15:42 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY ribottiota Ed ards adv. Epstein C No.: 502009CA040800XVOCMRAG Sec nd Amended Counterclaim Pa 11 of 13 31. EPSTEIN'S filing and prosecution of claims against EDWARDS recklessly and sely 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 mctitorious 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 des zribed 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 othi r abandoned claims and constitutes a specific bona fide termination in EDWARDS' favor of thelprior prosecution of each abandoned claim. 33. As a result of EPSTEIN's wrongful conduct as alleged, EDWARDS has suffered and will continue to suffer damages including but not limited to injury to his reputation, int erence in his professional relationships, the loss of the value of his time required to be diverted from his professional responsibilities, and the cost of defending against EPSTEIN's spuiious and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circti mstances. 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. EFTA00283057 11/29/2011 15:42 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY i l012/013 E aids adv. Epstein No.: 502009CA040800VOCXNIBAG See d Amended Counterclaim Pa 12 of 13 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Fa/ and U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attache, this day of November, 2011. Jack are a Flo ar No.: 169440 S Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard st Palm Beach, Florida 33409 hone: Fax: Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00283058 11/29/2011 15:42 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 0.13/013 Ed ards adv. Epstein Ca No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Sotut Amended Counterclaim Pa 13 of 13 COUNSEL LIST Ja A. Goldberger, Esquire At rbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 25 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 WJst Palm Beach. FL 33401 Ph ne- er, Jaffe, Weissing, Edward; Fistos & Lehrrnan, PL 42 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fotjt Lauderdale. FL 33301 Ph ne: Fax: Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fot Laude e 301 Ph ne: Fax: Josiph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esquire Fo ler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 77 S Flagler Drive We t Pahn 33401-6170 Ph ne: Fa : EFTA00283059