IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEEFREY EPSTEIN, | Plaintiff, vs. | ion ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and LM, individually, Defendant, SECOND 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. Zz Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, andlis 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, A. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to ibh he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a Jarge number of Je children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal EFTA00283047

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:38 FAX 5616845816 — “SEARCY DENNEY nh 002/013 is adv, Epstein No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG id Amended Counterclaim Page 2 of 13 3! 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 ag ies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN’S serial abuse and molestation of children; others rernain 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 ol ions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive defénse to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and punitive liabjlity and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the inary 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. 72 In some circumstances, EPSTEIN’s tactics have proven successful, while other vict)ms have thus far withstood this continued assault unon them and nersisted in the.nrosecntion and the assertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crirhe Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). EFTA00283048

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:39 FAX 5616845816 == = SEARCY DENNEY 3/0 is adv, Epstein Cast No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim Page 3 of 13 8. While prosecuting the legitimate claims on behalf of his clients, EDWARDS has notlengaged 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 oth | 9. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS’ cliche, 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 valite. His sole purpose in both filing and prosecuting claims against EDWARDS was never the a 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 prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prsfecton 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 List of having to fend off similar assaults. EPSTEIN’s real purpose was to put pressure on EDWARDS, L.M., and other victims by publishing what amounts to nothing more than a highly de tory 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 ultetior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims. EPSTEIN’S EFTA00283049

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

| Edwards adv. Epstein No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim Pagt 4 of 13 purpose in both filing and continuing to prosecute each of the claims against ARDS was to inflict a maximum economic burden on EDWARDS in having to defend t 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 int] 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 RJCO—“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act” pursuant to F.S. §§895.01, et. seq.; ; c. abuse of process; Lk tt | e, conspiracy to commit fraud. | 12, EPSTEIN, in his Complaint, directly alleged that EDWARDS was a knowing parka in a civil theft and criminal enterprise when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was andiis 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 sites for his spurious allegations. Indicative of his tota) disregard for the lack of any predicate for claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim. EFTA00283050

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“11/29/2011 15:40 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 0" 005/013 Edwards adv, Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG nd 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; ce. ‘ 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 utelio motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously iled in Paragraph 9. 15. EPSTEIN’S filing and prosecution of claims against EDWARDS recklessly and p ely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as EFTA00283051

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

adv. Epstcin No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim his|primary purpose to establish what he did consider or reasonably could have considered to be metitorious claims. 16. Each and every pleading filed by and on behalf of EPSTEIN in his prosecution of ni claim against EDWARDS, every motion, every request for production, every subpoena issued, and every deposition taken as detailed on the docket sheet attached as Exhibit A was int with respect to EDWARDS solely and exclusively to advance EPSTEIN’S efforts at extprtion 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 damages including but not limited to injury to his reputation, interference in his professional relationships, the loss of the value of his time required to be di from his professional responsibilities, and the cost of defending against EPSTEIN’s spurious and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory ges, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the ci tances, Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive vedas 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 jurisdictional limits of this Court. EFTA00283052

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:40 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 0 077/013 adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Secdnd Amended Counterclaim Pagt 7 of 13 19. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, is sui juris, resides in Broward County, Florida, andjis 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, Flonda. EPSTEIN is a convicted felon having entered into a plea agreement pursuant to whith he effectively conceded his having engaged in illicit sexual activity with a large number of e children over an extended period of time in violation of both State and Federal criminal EPSTEIN was sued civilly by a large number of his victims. Many of the cases “re him have been settled, and upon information and belief, federal law enforcement whe cies continue to investigate additional allegations of EPSTEIN’S serial abuse and sabes 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 a damages in favor of many victims of his depraved criminal exploitation of children incllding victims represented by EDWARDS. 23. ‘In the face of overwhelming evidence of his guilt, EPSTEIN repeatedly asserted bis Fin Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any substantive quettions regarding bis sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive 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 rdinary financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel EFTA00283053

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“11/28/2011 15:41 FAX 5616845816 “SEARCY DENNEY 00 Edwards adv. Epstein Cast No.; 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim Page 8 of 13 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 notlengaged 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 25. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS’ client, LM. for the sole purpose of further attempting to intimidate EDWARDS, LM., 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 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 kno 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 BP 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 with Jegitimate 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 |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. EFTA00283054

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:41 FAX 5616845816 == SEARCY DENNEY UU egg ois” i Ed adv. Epstein No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG S id Amended Counterclaim Page 9 of 13 . EPSTEIN acted purely out of malice toward EDWARDS and others, and he had subi motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims, EPSTEIN’S pri purpose in filing each of the claims against EDWARDS was to inflict a maximum omic burden on EDWARDS in baving to defend against the spurious claims, to distract ED|WARDS from the prosecution of claims against EPSTEIN arising out of EPSTEIN’S serial 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. i 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 dhs 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 spedulation, 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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“11/29/2011 15:41 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY ia /ois adv. Epstein _ No.; 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Seepnd Amended Counterclaim Page 10 of 13 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 als prosecution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful corel usion 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

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“11/29/2011 15:42 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY UU aes Edwards adv. Epstein Cask No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Ss d Amended Counterclaim Page 1) of 13 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 meritorious 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 destribed in Paragraph 27 except for an ongoing effort to salvage his abuse of process claim, it 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. Asa 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, interference 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 mn and baseless claims. WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory daniages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the right to assert a claim for punitive dadijeges upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. EFTA00283057

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:42 PAX 5616845816 “SEARCY DENNEY ; 012/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Cast No,: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Secpnd Amended Counterclaim Page 12 of 13 I 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by 94 Fax and U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached Jist, this day of November, 2011. ar No.: 169440 enney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard st Palm Beach, Florida 33409 hone: Fax: Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00283058

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

11/29/2011 15:42 PAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY | stl adv, Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Second Amended Counterclaim Page 13 of 13 | COUNSEL LIST } Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL_ 33401 Phone; Fax: Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL_ 33301 Phone Fax: Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Law Offices of Mare S. Nurik One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale 301 Phone Fax: Joseph L, Ackerman, Jr., Esquire Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 90] Phillips Point West 777 S Flagler Drive West Palm 33401-6170 Phane: Fax: 013/013 EFTA00283059