Epstein Data Wiki

Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards (Fla. 15th Cir. 2009)

Properties1
tagscase, florida, palm-beach, civil-rico, malicious-prosecution, litigation-privilege, 2009

31 min read

CaseJeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards et al.12
CourtCircuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida; Circuit Civil Division AG; complex litigation under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201134
Case number50 2009 CA 040800 XXXX MB AG13
FiledDecember 7, 200931
JudgesDavid F. Crow, Circuit Judge; later Donald W. Hafele, Circuit Judge324
Counts as pleadedFive: Fla. Stat. §§ 772.101 et seq. (Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act); Fla. Stat. §§ 895.01 et seq. (Florida RICO); abuse of process; fraud; conspiracy to commit fraud5678
Relief soughtTreble damages, fees and costs; divestiture of interests in the law firm; an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing the civil actions then pending against Epstein679
For the plaintiffRobert D. Critton, Jr. and Michael J. Pike, Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman; later Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Tonja Haddad, Fred Haddad, Jack A. Goldberger, W. Chester Brewer, Jr., and Link & Rockenbach, P.A.10311
For EdwardsJack Scarola, William B. King and Karen E. Terry, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley; Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal, Burlington & Rockenbach311
Epstein’s claimsReduced by amendment in April 2011 to a single abuse of process count against Edwards and one count against Rothstein; voluntarily dismissed August 16, 2012121314
CounterclaimEdwards counterclaimed for abuse of process and, later, malicious prosecution151614
AppealEdwards v. Epstein, No. 4D14-2282, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 12, 2015), reversing and certifying conflict; review declined, Epstein v. Edwards, No. SC15-2286 (Fla. June 9, 2017)1718
DispositionCounterclaim settled by agreement dated November 29, 2018 for $7,000,000; the agreement annexed a public apology from Epstein and provided for it to be read in open court on December 4, 2018, the day the jury trial was to begin, and the clerk’s minutes for that morning record the apology announced through Epstein’s counsel; counterclaim dismissed with prejudice January 7, 2019219202122

Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards et al., case 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXX MB AG, was a civil action Epstein filed on December 7, 2009 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, against Scott Rothstein, whom the complaint identifies as the managing partner and chief executive of the collapsed Fort Lauderdale firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., and against Bradley J. Edwards, the lawyer then acting for claimants who had sued Epstein.13 Of the five counts pleaded, two were racketeering counts, one under Florida’s civil racketeering remedies statute and one under the Florida RICO Act; the relief sought under the second included an order restraining the defendants from continuing the civil actions then pending against Epstein.569

None of the racketeering counts was ever adjudicated. Epstein withdrew them by amendment in April 2011, reduced the case to a single abuse of process count, and on August 16, 2012 voluntarily dismissed what remained, the day before a hearing on Edwards’s renewed motion for summary judgment.1213 Edwards’s counterclaim for abuse of process and malicious prosecution outlived the claim that provoked it by more than six years and was the reason the case reached a trial date at all.1514 On the morning of December 4, 2018, the day that trial was to begin, the court sat for seventeen minutes. The clerk’s minutes record Edwards’s counsel announcing the settlement at 9:31, Epstein’s counsel addressing the court three minutes later and the apology announced, the judge addressing the court, and the court adjourned at 9:45.21 In the apology annexed to the settlement agreement Epstein says that the allegations he had made about Edwards were false and that the suit was his attempt to damage Edwards’s business reputation and to stop him pursuing cases against him.20 Epstein agreed to pay $7,000,000; the counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice on January 7, 2019.1922

The action as filed

The complaint was filed on December 7, 2009 and received by the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County that day.13 The clerk’s docket records the case as Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, assigned to Circuit Civil Division AG before Judge David F. Crow, with a jury demand.3 The pleading itself is headed as complex litigation under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201, runs to thirty-six sheets of pleading followed by exhibits, and names Rothstein, Edwards and one further individual defendant.18

Its opening paragraph states the theory:

Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obligations to the administration of justice, deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions of justice, actionable frauds, and the orchestration and conducting of egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein one of several targets of their misconduct1

The firm itself was not sued. The complaint states that it “is currently a debtor in bankruptcy” and that it “is not named as a Defendant”.23 What Epstein pleaded was that the civil actions brought against him had been used as inventory for Rothstein’s Ponzi scheme: that settlements in those actions were marketed to investors, that discovery in them was conducted to inflate their apparent value rather than to try them, and that he had therefore been “prevented from fully and fairly defending the civil actions brought against him.”5

That framing was built directly on the federal charging instrument. The United States had filed an Information against Rothstein charging racketeering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) on December 1, 2009, six days before Epstein filed; a copy of it is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and the complaint recites its allegations as its own starting point.2324 Rothstein was sentenced to fifty years in federal custody on June 9, 2010.25

The counts

The complaint pleads five counts, each expressed to be against all defendants. The last of the five carries no count number in its heading.5678

  • Count I is headed as a violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 772.101 et seq., the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, against all defendants. It pleads that they “each and collectively constitute an enterprise pursuant to §772.102(3), Fla. Stat. (2009)”, that they engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, and that predicate acts were committed under the Florida chapters governing securities, fraudulent practices, forgery, extortion and perjury. It claims treble damages: “Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to threefold of his actual damages sustained, reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, and such other damages as allowed by law.”56
  • Count II is headed as Florida RICO, the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act”, under Fla. Stat. §§ 895.01 et seq., again against all defendants. It pleads the firm and the defendants as an enterprise under Fla. Stat. § 895.02(3), participation in it “through a pattern of racketeering, § 895.03(3), Fla. Stat.”, and that “Substantially more than two predicate acts” occurred within a five year time period.626
  • Count III pleads abuse of process; Count IV pleads fraud; the fifth count is headed “Conspiracy to Commit Fraud”.7278

The relief sought under the racketeering count is the part of the pleading that most clearly shows what the action was for. Under Fla. Stat. § 895.05 the amended complaint asks the court to order Rothstein, two further individual defendants and the group it calls the Litigation Team “to divest themselves of any interest in the enterprise, RRA” — a demand that does not include the man the same pleading names as RRA’s other principal owner of equity — then to “Enjoin all Defendants from engaging in the same type of conduct and activities as described herein”, and, third, temporarily to enjoin a named subset of them. The middle demand is the only one of the three addressed to every defendant, and the pleading draws that distinction itself

from the continuation of the Civil Actions brought against EPSTEIN until criminal charges have been formally brought against RRA and/or any of the Defendants, such that EPSTEIN may be allowed to evaluate whether a stay or dismissal of the Civil Actions against him is merited.9

The statutory racketeering count was thus the vehicle for an injunction that would have suspended the civil actions against Epstein for as long as it held.

The defendants

The original complaint named Rothstein, Edwards and one further individual. Successive amendments widened the caption considerably. One amended version adds Stuart Rosenfeldt, Russell Adler and William Berger, all Florida lawyers whom the pleading identifies as RRA partners, employees or representatives; and Kenneth Jenne and Michael Fisten, whom it identifies as employees of the firm and describes elsewhere as, respectively, a former Broward County Sheriff and a former Miami-Dade police officer.28293031 A later version adds further firm lawyers and staff, and brings to three the number of individual claimants named as defendants, each a party under a pseudonymous designation.32 The same three later intervened in the firm’s bankruptcy, where their own filing describes them as proceeding pseudonymously.33 Epstein dropped one of the three as a party before the action narrowed to abuse of process; the material read here does not record what became of the other two.13

⚠ Everything in the complaint and its amendments is allegation. No court made any finding on the racketeering counts, the fraud counts or the conspiracy count, because Epstein withdrew all of them before any of them was tried. The only count of Epstein’s own complaint a court ever passed on was abuse of process, and the ruling on it was that the pleading stated a cause of action, not that the cause of action was made out. The counterclaim is a separate matter and both of its counts were decided, on a ground that had nothing to do with whether Epstein’s allegations were true.14

How the claim ended

Edwards answered and counterclaimed for abuse of process; Epstein moved to dismiss the counterclaim and the court denied that motion.12 Edwards then moved for summary judgment on Epstein’s complaint, and the court denied that motion as premature on the ground that Epstein had not yet obtained records material to the case, and because of pending privilege issues.12

On April 15, 2011 Epstein filed an Amended Complaint consisting of a single abuse of process count against Edwards and a conspiracy count against Rothstein.12 The racketeering counts, the fraud count and the conspiracy to defraud count are absent from it. They were abandoned, not decided.

At a hearing on July 13, 2011 the court observed that the Amended Complaint did not clearly differentiate who had done what, making it “difficult to figure out the scope of discovery”, and granted Edwards’s motion to dismiss it with leave to amend.12 Epstein filed a Second Amended Complaint carrying a single count against each defendant; Edwards moved to dismiss it, and on October 4, 2011 the court entered an order holding that the abuse of process count stated a cause of action.1214

Edwards filed an Amended Counterclaim the same day, pleading abuse of process as Count I and malicious prosecution as Count II. It alleged that Epstein had filed and continued the claims knowing they had no factual support and in order to intimidate Edwards, and that every pleading, motion, subpoena and request for production served on his behalf was intended to “advance Epstein’s efforts at extortion … and constituted a perversion of process after its initial service.”15

On August 16, 2012, the day before the hearing on Edwards’s renewed motion for summary judgment and without having contested the facts or the law on which that motion rested, Epstein filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his remaining claims.13 The trial court later recorded the sequence in two sentences: “Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter-claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments.”14

The counterclaim, and four years of appellate procedure

By the time it was operative, Edwards’s Fourth Amended Counterclaim pleaded abuse of process and malicious prosecution, the latter alleging that Epstein had sued “for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate Edwards … and others into abandoning or settling their legitimate claims for less than their just and reasonable value”.34 The court gave Edwards leave to add a claim for punitive damages.13

Epstein moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which had held that the absolute litigation privilege bars a claim for malicious prosecution.34 On May 19, 2014 the court granted that motion on both counts, resting solely on the litigation privilege, and entered final judgment for Epstein35; the court awarded him fees and costs on February 3, 2015.141736

Edwards appealed the malicious prosecution ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeal as No. 4D14-2282. While the appeal was pending that court decided Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), declining to follow Wolfe and holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action; it certified conflict with Wolfe.3735 On November 12, 2015 the Fourth District reversed the judgment in this case on the authority of Fischer and again certified conflict: Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Its mandate issued on December 1, 2015.1718

Epstein sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Florida on December 10, 2015 as No. SC15-2286. On December 15 that court stayed the proceeding pending its decision in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, the lead case on the certified conflict.17 Debrincat was decided on February 9, 2017, holding that the litigation privilege did not bar the malicious prosecution claim.38 The Supreme Court then ordered Epstein to show cause why Debrincat was not controlling, and on June 9, 2017 disposed of his petition in four lines:

Upon review of the response to this Court’s order to show cause dated May 3, 2017, the Court has determined that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction in this case. See Debrincat v. Fischer, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S141 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017). The petition for discretionary review is, therefore, denied.18

Back in the circuit court, Epstein renewed his motion for summary judgment on the ground that Edwards could not show want of probable cause.39 The case was specially set for jury trial on December 5, 2017, then reset.40 In March 2018 Epstein petitioned the Fourth District for a writ of mandamus in No. 4D18-0762.41 In a companion emergency motion in the same matter, seeking review of the circuit court’s refusal of a stay, he argued that the cause had been set for trial before it was at issue, quoting the rule that “strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory”.42 On August 3, 2018 the court specially set Edwards’s severed claim for a ten-day jury trial beginning Tuesday, December 4, 2018 in Courtroom 10C.4 The judge who set it is named not on that order as pinned here but on the settlement agreement and on the clerk’s minutes of the trial date, both of which give Judge Hafele.221 In the weeks before it the court noticed counsel of a request to videotape the trial and set a hearing on in camera inspection issues for November 30.4344

The settlement and the apology

The record holds two settlement agreements between Edwards and Epstein, dated a day apart, both headed “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE [CONFIDENTIAL AS TO AMOUNT ONLY]” and both reciting the counterclaim as pending before Judge Hafele.452

The version dated November 29, 2018 provides: “On January 7, 2019, by wire transfer to the Searcy Denney Trust Account, Epstein shall make payment the sum of Seven Million Dollars (U.S. $7,000,000.00)”. It records that the payment “represents the recovery by Edwards, in whole or only in part, of all damage, cost, including attorney fees and related costs” incurred “in order to preserve and maintain Edwards’s professional and personal reputation as a skilled and experienced trial lawyer and highly ethical professional in that business practice.”19 It records that “Epstein desires to voluntarily make a sincere public apology to Edwards” and that he “either personally or through a designated representative, will read the public apology in open court on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, in the courtroom of Judge Donald Hafele, in conjunction with the announcement of the settlement.” Epstein undertook not to retract the apology in any response to a media request or unsolicited statement, and the agreement provided that either party would be free to publicise it after the apology had been read in open court. That is a term of the contract, not a record that it happened.19

The agreement makes no admission: “By entering into this Agreement, the Parties do not intend to make, nor shall they be deemed to have made, any admission of liability of any kind whatsoever.” A separate clause provides that “the Settlement Amount of this Agreement is strictly confidential”, and that any court filing of the agreement is to be made under seal with the amount kept out of the public record.46

The apology is Exhibit A. In the version attached to the November 29 agreement it reads:

While Mr. Edwards was representing clients against me, I filed a lawsuit against him in which I made allegations about him that the evidence conclusively proves were absolutely false. The truth was that his aggressive investigation and litigation style was highly effective and therefore troublesome for me. The lawsuit I filed was my unreasonable attempt to damage his business reputation and cause Mr. Edwards to stop pursuing cases against me. It did not work. Despite my efforts, he continued to do an excellent job for his clients and, through his relentless pursuit, held me responsible. I am now admitting that I was wrong and that the things I said to try to harm Mr. Edwards’s reputation as a trial lawyer were false. I sincerely apologize for the false and hurtful allegations I made and hope some forgiveness for my acknowledgment of wrongdoing.20

The wording was negotiated

The version of the agreement dated November 28, 2018 carries a different Exhibit A. Where the later text has Epstein saying he made “allegations about him that the evidence conclusively proves were absolutely false”, the earlier text has him say flatly that he “made absolutely false allegations about him.” Where the later text calls the suit “my unreasonable attempt to damage his business reputation”, the earlier text calls it “my vindictive attempt”.4720 The rest of the two texts is identical word for word.

Which of the two texts the parties settled on is established by their own exchange. On November 29, 2018 Edwards wrote, above the revised opening sentence, “I will agree to this -”.48 That sentence is the opening of the Exhibit A annexed to the agreement entered into as of that same day, and it is not in the Exhibit A annexed to the agreement of the day before.4720 Execution does not tell the two instruments apart: on each, one manuscript signature loops across both signature rules, and on each the acknowledgment for Epstein carries that instrument’s own day of November 2018 in manuscript and a notary’s signature, printed notarial block and embossed seal, while the corresponding acknowledgment for Edwards is not filled in.49 What was spoken aloud in the courtroom five days later is a separate question. The clerk’s minutes record that an apology was announced, not its text, and no transcript of the hearing of December 4, 2018 is in the material read for this page.21

The change runs in both directions at once. The admission of falsity was qualified, so that Epstein concedes what “the evidence conclusively proves”20 rather than what he knew; the admission of motive was softened, from a word that imputes malice to one that imputes only bad judgement. What that exchange of a day was worth to each side is not recorded in any document read for this page. What is recorded is that the agreement was signed five days before the trial date, that it bought the apology in exchange for a sum the same instrument required to be kept confidential, and that it was concluded in the week when the court was still setting hearings on what evidence the jury would see.442

Disposition and residue

The settlement disposed of the counterclaim only. On January 7, 2019, the day the wire transfer was due, Edwards filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counterclaim With Prejudice.22 Epstein died on August 10, 2019.50

The last filing in this action held in the released record is not a judgment. On May 22, 2020 the circuit court issued a Notice of Lack of Prosecution and Court’s Motion to Dismiss, reciting that nothing had been filed for ten months and that the action would be dismissed on further order unless good cause were shown.51 Epstein had been dead for nine of those months.

Reading the sequence

Three intervals in the record are worth setting out plainly, because each is a fact about timing rather than an inference about motive.

The complaint was filed six days after the United States filed its Information against Rothstein, and attaches that Information as an exhibit.243 The racketeering counts stood for sixteen months and were then removed by Epstein’s own amendment, so that no court ever ruled on them.12 And Epstein’s remaining claim was dismissed the day before the hearing on the motion that would have tested it.13

The sequence raises a question the documents do not answer: whether the action was ever meant to be tried. Epstein’s own later filings argued that he had probable cause to sue, and the one summary judgment the trial court granted him rested on a point of law without reaching that question; his renewed motion, which put probable cause squarely in issue, was never decided, because the case settled first.3914 The apology annexed to the settlement agreement says the suit “was my unreasonable attempt to damage his business reputation and cause Mr. Edwards to stop pursuing cases against me.”20 That is Epstein’s own characterisation, given in settlement of a claim he had defeated at first instance and lost on appeal, and it is neither a finding of any court nor an admission of liability, which the same instrument expressly excludes.46

Bradley J. Edwards; Scott Rothstein; Doe v. United States (CVRA litigation); 2008 non-prosecution agreement; Palm Beach Police Department investigation; United States v. Epstein (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Death of Jeffrey Epstein; Jack Scarola; Paul G. Cassell; Jack A. Goldberger; Jeffrey Epstein.

Footnotes

  1. Complaint, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards et al., Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXX MB AG (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Cnty.), 103 pp. including exhibits; caption, clerk’s filing stamp and “Summary of Action” at p. 1, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  2. Settlement Agreement and Release between Bradley J. Edwards and Jeffrey Epstein, “entered into as of this 29 day of November, 2018,” 13 pp.; recitals at p. 1, read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller docket report for case 502009CA040800XXXXMB, printed November 29, 2011 and filed as an exhibit in the action; case header, parties and first docket entries at pp. 14–16 of the run. The report carries the clerk’s own header “Not an Official Document”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00294244 p. 14 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  4. Order Setting Jury Trial and Directing Pretrial and Mediation Procedures, filed August 3, 2018, p. 1: the case is “specially set, number one, for jury trial on Tuesday, December 4, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., (10 days reserved) in Courtroom 10C”. Read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02767632 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Complaint, p. 30, general allegation 52 and the heading of Count I, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. Complaint, p. 31, paragraphs 55 to 59 and the heading of Count II, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  7. Complaint, p. 33, paragraph 67 and the heading of Count III. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Complaint, p. 35, the heading “Conspiracy to Commit Fraud,” the jury demand and the signature block, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Amended complaint, p. 27, paragraph 75 (a) to (c), the relief sought under Fla. Stat. § 895.05, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587914 p. 27 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Complaint, p. 36, naming Michael J. Pike of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, West Palm Beach, as attorneys for the plaintiff; read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 p. 36 ↩

  11. Counsel of record, taken from the service lists and certificates of service in the runs cited elsewhere on this page, because a docket page names only some of them. The appellant’s brief carries the certificate of service at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01106989 p. 49 (King, Burlington, Burlington and Rockenbach) and the full service list at p. 51 (Fred Haddad, Tonja Haddad Coleman, W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Goldberger, Beranek, Nurik). The March 2018 appendix carries Scarola, Terry and Segal at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798167 pp. 1-3, which also names Link & Rockenbach. Fowler White Burnett, P.A. prints as the firm footer at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584348 p. 1. Text layer only; not image-checked. The sheets give “Karen Terry” and “Tonja Haddad Coleman”; the middle initial and the shorter form used above are the forms carried elsewhere in the same filings. ↩ ↩2

  12. Motion of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein to dismiss the amended counterclaim, prepared by Fowler White Burnett, P.A.; “Background,” p. 2, read at the image at 350 dpi. It records the December 2009 filing, the denial of Epstein’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim, the denial of Edwards’s summary judgment motion as premature, the Amended Complaint of April 15, 2011, the hearing of July 13, 2011 and the Second Amended Complaint. ⚠ The copy in the release is a working draft: p. 2 carries an internal editorial instruction to counsel in the middle of the narrative, and the running header names a different motion from the one on the title page. Each dated step it recounts is corroborated by the appellant’s brief and by the circuit court’s own recital. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584348 p. 2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  13. Initial Brief of Appellant, p. 13, recording that Epstein dropped a defendant and reduced his claims, the summary judgment motions of September 22, 2010 and October 4, 2011, the notice of voluntary dismissal of August 16, 2012, and the grant of leave to add punitive damages. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01106989 p. 13 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  14. Same motion, p. 9, citing the “Order on Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, dated October 4, 2011” and quoting the procedural history recited in the court’s May 19, 2014 order granting summary judgment, read at the image at 350 dpi. The words quoted on this page are the circuit court’s, as reproduced in Epstein’s motion. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00619811 p. 9 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  15. Same draft motion, p. 3, setting out the Amended Counterclaim filed October 4, 2011 and its two counts, and quoting the counterclaim’s allegations. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584348 p. 3 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Initial Brief of Appellant, pp. 11-12, describing the complaint’s five counts and the answer and counterclaim. The list of counts begins on p. 11 and p. 12 opens in the middle of it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01106989 p. 11 ↩

  17. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s motion to stay proceedings or alternative motion to continue the trial date, pp. 1–2, recording the May 19, 2014 summary judgment and final judgment, the Fourth District’s reversal of November 12, 2015, the mandate of December 1, 2015, the notice of discretionary jurisdiction of December 10, 2015 and the Supreme Court’s stay order of December 15, 2015. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01112717 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  18. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et al., No. SC15-2286 (Fla. June 9, 2017), decision without published opinion, giving the prior history as Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 12, 2015); read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet is one page of a mixed compilation of reported decisions and litigation material produced under a bank subpoena, and it should be cited by page rather than by identifier alone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01296720 p. 110 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. Same agreement, p. 2, paragraphs 1 to 4, read at the image at 400 dpi. The text layer of this sheet is damaged in two places that matter: it renders the sum as “87,000,000.00”, having lost the dollar sign, and it renders the judge’s name as “Judge Donald !tick”. The sheet itself reads “Seven Million Dollars (U.S. $7,000,000.00)” and “the courtroom of Judge Donald Hafele”. Both readings on this page are taken from the image, which is why neither quotation binds against the extraction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 p. 2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  20. Same agreement, Exhibit A, “EPSTEIN’S APOLOGY TO EDWARDS,” p. 13, read at the image at 400 dpi. The extraction of this sheet renders one word wrongly, giving “I sincerely apologize fbr the false and hurtful allegations”; the sheet reads “for”. The quotation on this page follows the sheet, so a checker matching the whole passage against the extraction will not bind it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 p. 13 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  21. The clerk’s minute sheet for the jury trial in this action, headed with the case number and “THE HONORABLE DONALD HAFELE, PRESIDING” and dated Tuesday, December 4, 2018; one sheet under the Clerk and Comptroller’s filing stamp of that date, read at the image at 400 dpi. It records “Court in session” at 9:28, the case announced for the record and appearances taken, the settlement announced at 9:31 by counsel for the counter-plaintiff, at 9:34 “Atty Link addressed the court obo CDFT Epstein/apology announced”, “Judge addressed the court” at 9:37, and “COURT ADJOURNED” at 9:45. The sheet carries a watermark stating that it is not a certified copy; the watermark is legible on the image and is not in the extraction. The minutes name a court reporter. No transcript of this hearing is in the material read for this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768954 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  22. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Counterclaim With Prejudice, filed January 7, 2019 and signed by Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., p. 1, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768955 p. 1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. Complaint, p. 4, general allegations 8 and 9. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2

  24. Information, United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 09-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla.), filed December 1, 2009, charging racketeering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) among other counts; reproduced as an exhibit to the complaint, beginning at p. 37 of the run and continuing well beyond it: the Information is a 36-page instrument and this footnote cites only its opening sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩ ↩2

  25. Memorandum filed December 14, 2010 as Doc. 148-1 in adversary proceeding No. 10-02612-RBR in the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler bankruptcy, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, p. 6, read at the image at 350 dpi: “On June 9, 2010 after accepting Rothstein’s Plea Agreement the district court sentenced Rothstein to fifty (50) years in federal custody.” ⚠ This sheet is from the bankruptcy adversary proceeding and not from the action this page describes. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00595530 p. 6 ↩

  26. Complaint, p. 32, paragraphs 61 to 65. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩

  27. Complaint, p. 34, the heading of Count IV. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00729404 ↩

  28. Amended complaint in the same action, 30 pp.; caption at p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587914 p. 1 ↩

  29. Amended complaint, p. 3, general allegation 6, which is where the pleading gives its characterisations of two of the individual defendants. The wording used on this page states their former offices and omits the pleading’s adjectives. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587914 p. 3 ↩

  30. Amended complaint, p. 4, party allegations 9 to 13, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587914 p. 4 ↩

  31. Amended complaint, p. 5, party allegations 14 to 17, read at the image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00587914 p. 5 ↩

  32. A later amended complaint in the same action, 34 pp.; caption at p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00725319 p. 1 ↩

  33. Intervenors’ list of requested relief, In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., No. 09-34791-RBR (Bankr. S.D. Fla.), Doc. 6384, filed May 14, 2018, p. 1 of 6. The three intervenors are described there as proceeding pseudonymously. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00808132 p. 1 ↩

  34. Initial Brief of Appellant, p. 14, quoting the malicious prosecution allegation in the Fourth Amended Counterclaim and describing Epstein’s reliance on Wolfe v. Foreman; read at the image at 350 dpi. The ellipses inside the quoted allegation are the brief’s own and are reproduced as it prints them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01106989 p. 14 ↩ ↩2

  35. Same motion, p. 10, recording the entry of final judgment, the appeal, Fischer v. Debrincat, the Fourth District’s reversal and the Supreme Court’s refusal of review. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00619811 p. 10 ↩ ↩2

  36. Appendix filed in the action, p. 1, listing the “Order Granting Fees and Costs of February 3, 2015” and “Epstein’s Motion for Fees and Costs with attached pleadings dated June 2, 2014.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00617978 p. 1 ↩

  37. Fischer v. Debrincat, No. 4D14-1855 (Fla. 4th DCA July 15, 2015), 169 So. 3d 1204, reproduced in full as an attachment to Edwards’s motion to cancel oral argument in No. 4D14-2282; the holding and the certification of conflict at pp. 10–11 of the run. ⚠ Pages 5 to 11 of this run are the Fischer opinion, not a decision in this case; the enclosing filing is at pp. 1–4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00595357 p. 10 ↩

  38. Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), opinion of Polston, J., p. 1 of the run. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00603943 p. 1 ↩

  39. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, filed June 30, 2017, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00619811 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  40. Order specially setting jury trial, filed July 20, 2017, p. 1, setting the case for trial in December 2017. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02776708 p. 1 ↩

  41. Appendix to response to petition for writ of mandamus, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein et al., No. 4D18-0762 (Fla. 4th DCA), certificate of service dated March 12, 2018, pp. 1–2 of the run. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00798167 p. 1 ↩

  42. Emergency Motion for Review of Order Denying Stay, Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, Fourth District Court of Appeal, filed against the circuit court order of March 8, 2018, 20 sheets. The strict-compliance argument runs from p. 6; the motion quotes Bennett v. Continental Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Text layer only; not image-checked. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00793767 p. 6 ↩

  43. Notice to counsel of record of a request to videotape the trial, filed October 26, 2018, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768077 p. 1 ↩

  44. Amended order specially setting hearing, filed November 26, 2018, p. 1, setting a two-hour hearing on in camera inspection issues for November 30, 2018 before Judge Hafele. It is headed as an amended order, so an earlier order setting the same hearing existed; that earlier order is not cited here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768891 p. 1 ↩ ↩2

  45. Settlement Agreement and Release between Bradley J. Edwards and Jeffrey Epstein, “entered into as of this 28 day of November, 2018,” 13 pp.; recitals at p. 1, read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 p. 1 ↩

  46. Same agreement, p. 6, paragraphs 9 and 10, read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 p. 6 ↩ ↩2

  47. Settlement Agreement and Release dated November 28, 2018, Exhibit A, “EPSTEIN’S APOLOGY TO EDWARDS,” p. 13, read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 p. 13 ↩ ↩2

  48. E-mail from Brad Edwards, header stamped Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 12:05:27 +0000, a stamp that carries its own zone; one sheet, read at the image at 350 dpi. The message sets out “I will agree to this -” as its own paragraph and, as a separate paragraph beneath it, the sentence that opens the apology annexed to the agreement entered into as of that day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01015113 p. 1 ↩

  49. Settlement Agreement and Release of November 29, 2018, its signature page and the notarial page that follows, and Settlement Agreement and Release of November 28, 2018, the same two pages; read at the image at 350 dpi. On each instrument, beneath the words “IN WITNESS WHEREOF”, one manuscript signature loops across both signature rules; on each, the acknowledgment for Jeffrey Epstein carries that instrument’s own day of November 2018 in manuscript and is completed by a notary’s signature over the notary’s rule, with a printed notarial block and an embossed seal; on each, the corresponding acknowledgment for Bradley J. Edwards is not filled in. The extraction of the signature sheet is badly damaged in both instruments, so nothing further is quoted from it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804054 pp. 11 and 12 https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00804067 pp. 11 and 12 ↩

  50. See Death of Jeffrey Epstein. ↩

  51. “Notice of Lack of Prosecution, Court’s Motion to Dismiss, and Order Setting Hearing,” filed May 22, 2020, p. 1 of 4, read at the image at 350 dpi. It recites that “no activity by filing of pleadings, orders or court, or otherwise, has occurred for a period of ten (10) months or more”, gives notice under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(e) that the action will be dismissed if no record activity occurs within sixty days, and sets a status conference for August 25, 2020. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02768981 p. 1 ↩

Backlinks