05/21/2012 14:18 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 001/013 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG | JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs.: SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and LM., individually, Defendant, / THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM Bradley J. Edwards (EDWARDS) sues Jeffrey Epstein (EPSTEIN) and alleges: COUNT I—ABUSE OF PROCESS io. 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 laws. EFTA00299732

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:18 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 002/013 Ed s adv. Epstein Case No.; 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third 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 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 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 questions 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 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 Jegal counsel into abandoning their legitimate claims or resolving those claims for substantially less than their jeutvalne. 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 sacertion of federal statutory rights afforded to them pursuant to the Federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). EFTA00299733

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:18 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 003/013 Edwards ady. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG 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 inchasistent 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. 9. Nevertheless, EPSTEIN filed civil claims against EDWARDS and EDWARDS’ client, 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 both filing and prosecuting 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 knowingly baseless and unsupportable claims against EDWARDS and proceeded to prosecute those baseless and unsupportable claims in order to divert EDWARDS from the prosecution of EDWARDS’ 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 thejrisk 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. 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 EFTA00299734

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:19 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 004/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 4 of 13 primuary 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 ints abandoning the claims he was prosecuting against EDWARDS. 11. Theclaims 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 wad 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 forjhis claims, EPSTEIN ignored the statutory requirement for written notice prior to the initiation of a civil theft claim. EFTA00299735

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:19 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 005/013 | Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Paget 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 ulterior motives and purposes in filing his unsupported and unsupportable claims as previously dethiled in Paragraph 9. 15. | EPSTEIN’S filing and prosecution of claims against EDWARDS recklessly and 1 purposely disregarded the lack of justification for each of the claims and EPSTEIN never had as i i 1 i EFTA00299736

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:19 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 006/013 ! Edwards adv. Epstein Casb No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Thisd Amended Counterclaim Page 6 of 13 | 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 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; g, 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; le, the cost of defending against EPSTEIN’s spurious and baseless claims. | WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory datiages, 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 damages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. | Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. EFTA00299737

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:20 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 007/013 4 Edwards adv. Epstein No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG ind Amended Counterclaim Page 7 of 13 | : COUNT II—MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 18. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum juribdictional 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, rlolida 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 against 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 aad huge civil judgments for both compensatory and puijtive 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 questions regarding his sexual exploitation of his minor victims. Lacking any substantive EFTA00299738

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:20 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 008/013 Edwards adv. Epstein ie No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page $ of 13 . defense to the claims against him, EPSTEIN sought to avoid his compensatory and pumitive ibity and to deter cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by employing the exthordinay financial resources at his disposal to intimidate his victims and their legal counsel int) 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 improper conduct nor has EDWARDS taken any action inconsistent with the duty he has to vigorously represent the interests of his clients. EPSTEIN hasjno 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’ client, 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 valuc. His sole purpose in filing claims against EDWARDS was never the stated purpose of coliéeting 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 prosecution of EDWARDS’ legitimate claims against EPSTEIN, to require EDWARDS to expend time, cnergy 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 EFTA00299739

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:20 FAX 5616845516 SEARCY DENNEY 009/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG d Amended Counterclaim Page 9 of 13 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 reléase issued under the cloak of protection of the litigation privilege. 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 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 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 fraud against EPSTEIN when EPSTEIN was well aware that there was and is absolutely no EFTA00299740

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:21 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 010/013 Edwards adv. Epstein je No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 10 of 13 e i lence 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 theh claim. | 29. _ EPSTEIN knew at the time of the filing of the specified claims and throughout his ti prosccution of those claims that he could not prosecute the claims to a successful coticlusion 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. EFTA00299741

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:21 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 011/013 Thitd 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 dethiled 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 mefitorious claims. ; 32. After unsuccessful efforts to defend and amend his maliciously filed and prokecuted 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 ott 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 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; a. 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. EFTA00299742

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:21 FAX 5616845816 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 12 of 13 SEARCY DENNEY 012/013 WHEREFORE, EDWARDS demands judgment against EPSTEIN for compensatory damages, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, reserves the night to assert a claim for punitive Fax and U.S. Mail to all counsel on the attached li darnages upon satisfying the applicable statutory prerequisites. Counter/plaintiff, EDWARDS, further demands trial by jury. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by i al Way of May, 2012. enney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P_A. Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard est Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone Fax: Attorneys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00299743

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

05/21/2012 14:22 FAX 5616845816 SEARCY DENNEY 013/013 Edwards adv. Epstein Cage No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Third Amended Counterclaim Page 13 of 13 COUNSEL LIST } Bradley J. Edwards, Esquire Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Font Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone) Fax: Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone Fax: ! Mare S. Nurik, Esquire One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone Fax: Torja Haddad Coleman, Esquire Law Offices of Tonja Haddad, P.A. $24'S Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, FL_ 33301 Phone Fax: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esquire The L-S Law Firm 1441 Brickell Avenue, 15th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone Fax: EFTA00299744