EFTA00792811

101 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
was. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MR. SCAROLA: And what the 
non-prosecution agreement was, was a deal 
that Jeffrey Epstein entered into with the 
federal government to avoid criminal 
prosecution for the molestation of 
approximately 40 children. Bradley Edwards 
was challenging the validity of 
non-prosecution agreement by filing a Crime 
Victims' Rights Act case, also referenced in 
the complaint. 
THE COURT: So let's stop there for a 
minute and let's refocus ourselves on the 
motion that's before the Court. It's a 
motion in limine, particularly -- from this 
Court's perspective, important as it relates 
to the invocation of the Fifth Amendment and 
attorney-client privilege, whatever that 
might amount to be. 
If you ask Mr. Epstein -- or if you 
have asked Mr. Epstein a question regarding 
whether or not he was motivated to sue 
Mr. Edwards because in part of the move by 
Jane Doe through Mr. Edwards -- as I 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792911

102 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
understand, Mr. Edwards has been counsel. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. Pro bono 
counsel in that case for many years. 
THE COURT: And you ask Mr. Epstein is 
it not true that you entered into this 
non-prosecutorial agreement because of X, Y 
and Z, I don't think there's a problem with 
that. 
In other words, if he refuses to answer 
the question, then I think that can be 
admitted. 
A question of whether you are a serial 
child molestation would fail the 403 
analysis in my view. 
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. If I led the 
Court to believe that that's what the 
question was going to be, then I wasn't 
communicating very well. 
THE COURT: You have always 
communicated exceptionally well, so could 
very well be my error. 
So tell me what is the intend, then --
do you recall the questions that have been 
asked, if any, regarding this particular NPA 
that he failed to respond at this point? 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792912

103 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I can't recall 
those offhand. 
What I was addressing was not 
specifically a Fifth Amendment issue. 
Although, I recognize the fact that this 
motion is supposed to be focused on the 
Fifth Amendment. But Your Honor, I thought, 
raised the question about whether we were 
going to get into the existence of other 
claims besides the claims of L.M., E.W. and 
Jane Doe. And that's what I was responding 
to. 
I was pointing out that there is 
absolutely no way to avoid getting into the 
existence of those other claims, because 
Epstein has raised those issues in the 
complaint he filed against Brad Edwards. 
And he is relying upon those circumstances 
by virtue of the presentation that is being 
made being made during this hearing to 
suggest to Your Honor, One of the reasons 
why I had probable cause to believe that 
this was maliciously prosecuted case against 
me was because of what went on after Brad 
Edwards joined RRA in moving to set aside 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792913

104 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
the non-prosecution agreement. 
So if that's what he's telling you he 
intends to prove, I'm simply pointing out to 
Your Honor -- and I can go through this. 
It's going to come up in almost every one of 
these elements -- while I understand the 
Court's concern about trying to narrow the 
focus, the door has been blown off the 
hinges by Mr. Epstein's own complaint. And 
his lawyers have taken that door and thrown 
it out the window when they argued to Your 
Honor that one of the reasons why we 
believe -- or Jeffrey Epstein reasonably 
believed that Brad Edwards was a knowing 
participant in the Ponzi scheme, is because 
he moved to set aside the non-prosecution 
agreement after he joined RRA. 
Now, many aspects of this timeline --
THE COURT: I have to say, I really 
don't understand the connection, but I will 
give Mr. Link to explain it to me. 
MR. SCAROLA: I'm not sure I understand 
it either, but this is their exhibit. They 
are the ones that are saying this was the 
basis for our making this determination, or 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792914

105 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
for Mr. Epstein reasonably believing that 
Brad Edwards was a knowing participant in 
the Ponzi scheme. 
THE COURT: Just for the record, there 
was never a malicious prosecution claim 
filed by Epstein --
MR. LINK: There was not, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Abuse of process claim? 
MR. LINK: Yes. 
THE COURT: Juts so that the record is 
clear. 
MR. SCAROLA: Abuse of process claim. 
MR. LINK: And, Your Honor, if I may 
just point out --
THE COURT: No, not right now, please. 
You will have amble opportunity to rebut. 
MR. LINK: Thank you, Judge. 
THE COURT: I don't want to get into 
what we did this morning. 
MR. SCAROLA: So all I am responding 
to -- and maybe this isn't the appropriate 
time to that -- is the idea that we are able 
to sanitize this case to the point where we 
are not going to be talking about a variety 
of other claims that were being prosecuted 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792915

106 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
by other plaintiffs' lawyers working 
together with Brad Edwards, and not going to 
be talking about the Crime Victims' Rights 
Act case, because as Your Honor has 
repeatedly acknowledged, motive is going to 
be very significant. And we intend to prove 
that Jeffrey Epstein's motive in filing 
these knowingly false claims against Brad 
Edwards his motive was to extort Bradley 
Edwards into abandoning or cheaply 
compromising the rights of his clients, and 
abandoning his efforts through the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act case to set aside the 
non-prosecution agreement. 
He had an enormous economic motive, if 
he could limit his civil exposure, and he 
had a tremendous motive, in terms of the 
criminal liability he faced, and the way he 
chose to address that was, I'm going to make 
an example out of Brad Edwards, who ha taken 
a leadership role among all these plaintiffs 
lawyers, and I'm going to target one of 
these victims. I'm going to sue them both, 
and I'm going to show them what happens when 
you try to take on this billionaire. That's 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792916

107 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
what he was trying to do. Plain and simple. 
And we are entitled, I respectfully suggest, 
to be able to prove just how big a motive 
that was. What's at stake. 
THE COURT: I'm not in disagreement 
with you. 
When this went on the board, my first 
response to Mr. Link and his presentation as 
to Mr. Epstein's reasons were what? Was 
that this can be turn around directly to 
harm potentially Mr. Epstein and provide 
Mr. Edwards with the motivation. So I'm not 
in disagreement with you. 
The only thing I am concerned with --
certainly one of the more pertinent things 
that I am concerned with for today's 
hearing, again, relates back to how far we 
are going to permit the jury to hear, or how 
much we are going to permit the jury to hear 
as it relates to these other claims. 
Now, as you further described it --
again, subject to Mr. Link's rebuttal --
there is no way around the fact that the NPA 
is going to become a part of this trial. 
As I have indicated earlier, and the 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792917

108 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
reason for my question, was to ensure that 
my understanding was correct that the 
principle reason -- or a principle reason 
Mr. Epstein continues to invoke the Fifth 
Amendment is because of the pendency of this 
NPA case, correct? 
MR. LINK: Generally, yes. It's not 
the pending of the NPA case, but it's the 
case --
THE COURT: The potential of a 
criminal -- further criminal exposure if the 
NPA gets revoked -- or whatever the 
terminology is --
MR. LINK: That's correction, Your 
Honor. 
THE COURT: -- in Judge Marra's court, 
assuming he's still the Judge on the case. 
MR. SCAROLA: Just to clarify that 
point, if I could. 
THE COURT: Sure. 
MR. SCAROLA: The non-prosecution 
agreement is an agreement with the U.S. 
Attorney's office for the Southern District 
of Florida. It extends immunity to 
Mr. Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792918

109 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
for crimes claims committed in the Southern 
District of Florida. 
So even if per chance the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act case were to go away 
tomorrow, which seems highly unlikely, 
Mr. Epstein will still have a valid right to 
assert a Fifth Amendment privilege. And I 
acknowledge that. I haven't challenged the 
validity of his Fifth Amendment assertion. 
What we are talking about is not his 
right to assert it, it's the consequences of 
that assertion. 
THE COURT: And to respectfully bring 
us back into focus on what's before the 
Court, generally, the invocation of the 
Fifth Amendment, and bringing out the fact 
that the NPA in some form or fashion, 
because of it being a reason for the 
invocation of the Fifth Amendment, is going 
to be mentioned during the trial. There's 
no way around it. 
MR. LINK: We understand that, Judge. 
THE COURT: Fine. 
The question that I am going to pose to 
you and Mr. Scarola now is how far we are 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792919

110 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
going to go with that agreement and where 
the 403 analysis has to focus. So --
Not now. When you have your 
opportunity. 
Mr. Scarola. 
MR. LINK: Champing at the bit, Your 
Honor. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I believe 
that it is unavoidable that the jury be 
informed as to what the non-prosecution 
agreement is. It would be our intention to 
enter it into evidence. They need to 
understand what the Crime Victims' Rights 
Act is. What they don't need to do is to 
resolve the legitimacy of 40 other 
plaintiffs' claims. 
Now, some of Mr. Epstein's (sic) 
clients -- in fact, I think all three of 
them -- are identified in the 
non-prosecution agreement. So Mr. Epstein, 
as part of the non-prosecution agreement, 
agrees to compensate each of these 40 people 
under specific circumstances. And that gets 
us into a discussion as to why the federal 
lawsuit was filed. And this is something 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792920

111 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
that we have referenced briefly in argument 
before Your Honor earlier. But --
THE COURT: I want to stay on this 
subject for just a moment, if I could. And 
that is, tell me why you believe that the 
motivation that Mr. Epstein may have had to 
file this suit was relating to or is related 
to this Jane Doe moving to unseal the NPA. 
Explain that to me again, please. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
I think that obviously motive can only 
be proven through circumstantial evidence if 
the defendant is not confessing. And not 
only is Mr. Epstein not confessing, he's 
refusing to give considerable relevant 
testimony because of his assertion of both 
the attorney-client privilege in the absence 
of any assertion of advice of counsel 
defense, as we have already established, and 
his Fifth Amendment privilege. So we need 
to prove what his motive is 
circumstantially. 
And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that 
Mr. Edwards is lead counsel in this Crime 
Victims' Rights Act case. He clearly knows, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792921

112 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
because he's a participant in that case. He 
has intervened in the case. He knows that 
the consequences of that Crime Victims' 
Rights Act case could be that he loses the 
immunity that he negotiated with the U.S. 
Attorney's Office. 
So being able to push Brad Edwards 
aside as the primary moving force in the 
Crime Victims' Rights Act case is obviously 
a reasonable conclusion from those 
circumstances. But it goes beyond that, 
because direct threats were made to Bradley 
Edwards by Jeffrey Epstein. 
THE COURT: So the suggestion, I guess, 
from the defense, the malicious prosecution 
claim of Mr. Epstein is that he found it 
necessary to file the lawsuit -- strike 
that. 
Yeah. He found it necessary to file 
the lawsuit against Rothstein, Edwards and 
L.M., because he felt that by doing this 
unsealing it was motivation, it was 
exposure, it was public information so as to 
allegedly gin up these three claims held by 
the three plaintiffs with the initials and 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792922

113 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
the Jane Doe. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. 
THE COURT: On the other hand, as I 
indicated, the reverse effect taking place, 
would be Mr. Edwards' position that in fact 
the ill motive was the fact that -- and to 
file this lawsuit against Edwards and 
others -- was because Mr. Epstein was being 
exposed, if you will. 
MR. SCAROLA: Poor choice of words. 
THE COURT: Pardon me? 
MR. SCAROLA: Poor choice of words. 
That was a joke, Your Honor. A bad one. 
THE COURT: That's okay. I understand. 
So that's essentially what I am 
understanding count -- point counterclaim. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
My only point is, we can't avoid 
getting into that. As soon as they raise 
it, we can make the counterpoint. We can 
explain why it was done. And the same thing 
is true with regard to everything else that 
is on this list. The claim for 
$50 million --
THE COURT: I'm not sure that they even 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792923

114 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
have raise it for it to be relevant. 
MR. SCAROLA: I don't think they do, 
because we have an obligation to prove our 
case. We get to prove malice. 
THE COURT: Well, I am even talking 
about probable cause. 
MR. SCAROLA: And probable cause. Yes, 
sir. I agree. We can prove probable cause. 
We can prove what Mr. Epstein knew. We can 
prove his motives, and we can prove malice 
as part of proving probable cause. 
But I don't think it's necessary to 
ever parse out is this relevant to probable 
cause only, is it relevant to malice only. 
If it's relevant to one or the other it 
comes in. 
THE COURT: And the 40 individuals that 
you are contending and that's the subject to 
this NPA are all minors? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, Your Honor. 
And what the federal law says is 
$150,000 per molestation. That's what the 
federal law says. And what the NPA says is 
if these claim are brought pursuant to the 
federal statute, you are not going to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792924

115 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
contest your liability. 
Now, what they did contest is whether 
it's 150,000 per molestation, or 150 cap. 
So once you pay the 150,000 you get to 
molest these kids as many times as you want 
to. 
THE COURT: Per claim? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. So that was an 
issue. But that's the reason why -- and the 
jury is going to need to hear this -- why 
does Brad Edwards file a 256-page -- or 256-
paragraph -- whatever it is -- or 256 
counts --
THE COURT: 254-page --
MR. SCAROLA: Whatever it is. Why does 
he file this lengthy federal case? Was that 
really as an effort to try to gin up these 
cases for purposes of participating in a 
Ponzi scheme or was there an independent 
legitimate basis for doing what he did? 
THE COURT: Of course, the interesting 
part of that is from the timeline, the 
complaint filed -- the federal complaint, 
234-page federal complaint was filed after 
the settlement of three cases. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792925

116 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
MR. SCAROLA: No, sir. I don't think 
so. 
MR. LINK: No. 
THE COURT: I thought that the 
settlement was 7/6 -- I'm sorry. My bad.I 
was reading '09. The 7/27/09, and then 
7/6/10. That was my error. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. 
And you may recall -- we have already 
made reference to the timing of the filing 
of that federal case that we were obliged to 
file within two years after L.W. coming of 
age. She was about to celebrate her 20th 
birthday and it needed to be filed within 
that time. 
THE COURT: There were statute of 
limitations issues. Again, another 
counterpoint. 
MR. SCAROLA: Exactly correct. 
Absolutely. 
I am only suggesting to Your Honor that 
it is very difficult to be able to say as a 
blanket matter, I am not going to let in 
evidence of these other claims. 
THE COURT: Again, I am not taking that 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792926

117 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
position yet. What I'm saying is that on a 
matter-by-matter basis -- and we are using 
Mr. Epstein's timeline and those pertinent 
events, which are noted therein -- if there 
were questions that relate to the NPA that 
were asked of Mr. Epstein and he did not 
answer based on Fifth Amendment grounds, the 
inclination -- again, without reading 
question by question, would be to allow that 
in, subject again, to the issue of multiple 
claimants, if you will, the 40 minors that 
you represented to the Court. 
But again, when we look at it from the 
standpoint of both sides trying to balance 
this as best I can under 403. 
On the one hand we have 
Mr. Edwards taking strike that --
Mr. Epstein taking the position that doing 
what was done by Jane Doe through 
Mr. Edwards as counsel was an attempt to 
publicize and to sensationalize the 
circumstances so as to increase the value of 
at least the claims that were held by the 
Rothstein firm. 
MR. SCAROLA: Which I think is what 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792927

118 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
every lawyer is supposed to do within the 
bounds of propriety, obviously. But our job 
is to maximize the value of our clients' 
claims. 
THE COURT: And on the other side of 
the coin is Mr. Edwards taking the position 
that the impetus -- or an impetus for filing 
the complaint at bar was the exposure of 
Mr. Epstein -- once again, to the ignominy 
of having to face the publicity of a 
non-prosecutorial agreement where there were 
admissions, where there were agreements --
perhaps not admissions -- but agreements 
that limited the prosecution of him as it 
relates to multiple claimants or multiple 
potential victims. 
So again, my ruling on that is if there 
are questions that have to do with this 
issue, globally they will be allowed to be 
asked subject to further argument as it 
relates to the multiplicity of the numerous 
victims that we are dealing with here as 
alleged. 
Same as it goes with this 234-page 
federal complaint. If there were any 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792928

119 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
questions that were asked of Mr. Epstein 
where he refused to answer on Fifth 
Amendment grounds, I find that the 
information would be relevant. Therefore, 
his failure to answer would be -- would be 
able to be utilized if such questions were 
asked of him regarding the 234-page federal 
complaint filed on behalf of L.M. by 
Mr. Edwards. 
MR. SCAROLA: Let me just clarify one 
point, and that is we have been focusing on 
questions that have already been asked of 
Mr. Epstein. Obviously, we have the right 
to call Mr. Epstein as an adverse witness. 
We have the right to put him in that witness 
chair in front of the jury, and to ask him 
questions that Your Honor has considered to 
be appropriate that may not have been asked 
at the time of his deposition. 
So I want to make it clear that we 
don't consider, nor do I understand Your 
Honor to be ruling that we would only be 
limited to asking questions already asked of 
him in his deposition. We would permitted 
to ask him any question, relevant and 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792929

120 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
material to the claims that he has made 
against Mr. Edwards. And that as has been 
announced, we know he will be invoking his 
Fifth Amendment right. 
THE COURT: With the caveat and 
understanding that any reasonably sensitive 
type of question that is going to be 
construed as graphic -- reasonably construed 
as graphic, going to be questions about 
global conduct, should be run by the court 
first by way of a proffer. 
MR. SCAROLA: I understand the Court's 
concern. And I --
THE COURT: I am very, very cognizant 
of the fact that we are going to spending a 
significant amount of time both pretrial and 
at trial. And I do not want to get into a 
circumstance where we are going to be taking 
liberties at the expense of ensuring that a 
fair trial is provided to all. 
MR. SCAROLA: I am happy to make the 
commitment to the Court, because I 
understand your concern, and I recognize the 
sensitivity of these issues. 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792930