EFTA00188608

Case 
2 
9:08-cv-8073K A 
G0 
t 
34
.4,M 283.A60V erNeocricrztli&viD ocket 01/21
O/01 
eas 
6-e Og: /9 
1 
vage Z4 
f .595 Page 25 of
affiliated with Epstein and Brunel brought underage girls from all over the world, promising them 
modeling contracts. Epstein and Brunel would then obtain a visa for these girls, then would charge the 
underage girls rent, presumably to live as underage prostitutes in the condos. See MENII. 
Sworn Statement, Exhibit "RH" at 7-10, 12-15, 29-30, 39-41, 59-60 and 62-67. 
66. 
In view of this information suggesting Brunel could provide significant evidence of 
Epstein's trafficking in young girls for sexual abuse, Edwards had Brunel served in New York for 
deposition. See Notice of Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel attached hereto as Exhibit "II." Before the 
deposition took place, Brunt's attorney (Tama Kudman of West Palm Beach) contacted Edwards to 
delay the deposition date. Eventually Kudman informed Edwards in January 2009 that Brunel had left 
the country and was back in France with no plans to return. This information was untrue; Brunel was 
actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach. See Banasiak deposition, deposition attachment 
#16 at 154-160 and 172-175; see also pages from Epstein's probation file evidencing Jean Luc Brunel 
(JLB) staying at his house during that relevant period of time attached Exhibit "D". As a result, 
Edwards filed a Motion for Contempt, attached hereto as Exhibit "KK" (Because Epstein settled this 
case, the motion was never ruled upon.) 
67. 
Edwards was also informed that Epstein paid for not only Brunel's representation 
during the civil process but also paid for legal representation for 
(Epstein's executive 
assistant and procurer of girls for him to abuse), Larry Visoski (Epstein's personal pilot), Dave Rogers 
(Epstein's personal pilot), Larry 
(Epstein's personal pilot), 
(Epstein's 
housekeeper), 
(Epstein's live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of 
Epstein's affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein's brother), and Janusz Banasiak (Epstein's 
house manager) It was nearly impossible to take a deposition of someone that would have helpful 
information that was not represented by an attorney paid for by Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, 
23 
EFTA00188888

Case 9:08-cv-807=/a013498meiiit 2,1%.j,p6ogeri
eodicri6087,Roskestg23,gla.5 Page 26 of 
Exhibit "N" at ¶11. 
68. 
While Epstein and others were preventing any legitimate discovery into his sexual 
abuse of minor girls, at the same time he was engaging (through his attorneys) in brutal questioning of 
the girls who had filed civil suits against him, questioning so savage that it made local headlines. See 
Jane Musgrave, Victims Seeking Sex offender's Millions See Painful Pasts Used Against Them, Palm 
Beach Post News, Jan. 23, 2010, available at http://www.nalmbeachnost.com/news/crimeivictims-
seekina-sex-offenders-millions-see-nainful-nasts-192988.html attached hereto as Exhibit "LL." 
Edwards Pursues Other Lines of Discovery 
69. 
Because of Epstein's thwarting of discovery and attacks on Edwards's clients, Edwards 
was forced to pursue other avenues of discovery. 
Edwards only pursued legitimate discovery 
designed to fiuther the cases filed against Epstein. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 
70. 
Edwards notified Epstein's attorneys of his intent to take Bill Clinton's deposition. 
Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell 
who was Epstein's longtime companion and helped to run Epstein's companies, kept images of naked 
underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, engaged in lesbian 
sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photographed underage females in 
sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer; (b) it was national news when 
Clinton traveled with Epstein aboard Epstein's private plane to Africa and the news articles classified 
Clinton as Epstein's friend. (c) the complaint filed on behalf of Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that 
she was required by Epstein to be sexually exploited by not only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male 
peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and 
personal acquaintances" — categories Clinton and acquaintances of Clinton fall into. The flight logs 
showed Clinton traveling on Epstein's plane on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2005. See 
24 
EFTA00188889

Case 9:08-cv-80736-Km.,, Document 291-15 Entered on 
Docket 01J21/2D.15 Page 27 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc 16040 
Filed 04/08/11 
P' age Zioi ot 39 
Flight logs attached hereto as Exhibit "MM." Clinton traveled on many of those flights with Ghislaine 
Maxwell, 
MI, 
and 
- all employees and/or co-conspirators of Epstein's 
that were closely connected to Epstein's child exploitation and sexual abuse. The documents clearly 
show that Clinton frequently flew with Epstein aboard his plane, then suddenly stopped - raising the 
suspicion that the friendship abruptly ended, perhaps because of events related to Epstein's sexual 
abuse of children. Epstein's personal phone directory from his computer contains e-mail addresses for 
Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his 
schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton's personal numbers. This information certainly leads one to 
believe that Clinton might well be a source of relevant information and efforts to obtain discovery from 
him were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. See Exhibits "B", "F" "AA", "OD", 
and "MM" and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 115. 
71. 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., provided notice that he intended to take the deposition of 
Donald Trump. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) The message pads confiscated 
from Epstein's home indicated that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several 
occasions during the time period most relevant to my Edwards's clients' complaints; (b) Trump was 
quoted in a Vanity Fair article about Epstein as saying "1've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," 
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of 
them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." Jeffrey Epstein: 
International Moneyman of Mystery; He's pals with a passel of Nobel Prize—winning scientists, CEOs 
like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump. But it wasn't 
until he flew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa on his private Boeing 727 that the 
world began to wonder who he is. By Landon Thomas Jr. (See article attached hereto as Exhibit "NN") 
(c) Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein 
25 
EFTA00188890

Case 9:08-cv-807211159._313gsigpt 28Oalf605eriliclier41/0871c)(xlVg2ypoczyg.5 Page 28 of 
sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club; (d) Jane Doe No. 102's complaint alleged that Jane Doe 
102 was initially approached at Trump's Maralago by Ghislaine Maxwell and recruited to be Maxwell 
and Epstein's underage sex slave; (e) Mark Epstein (Jeffrrey Epstein's brother) testified that Trump 
flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane with him (the same plane that Jane Doe 102 alleged was used to have 
sex with underage girls); (f) Trump had been to Epstein's home in Palm Beach; (g) Epstein's phone 
directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency 
numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman. 
Based on this 
information, Edwards reasonably believed that Trump might have relevant information to provide in 
the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition. See 
deposition of Mark Epstein, September 21, 2009, at 48-50 (Deposition Attachment #19); See Jane Doe 
102 1 Epstein, Exhibit "B"; Exhibit "F"; "Exhibit"J"; "N" and See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 
113. 
72. 
Edwards provided notice that he intended to depose Alan Dershowitz. 
Edwards 
possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) Dershowitz is believed to have been friends with Epstein 
for many years; (b) in one news article Dershowitz comments that, "I'm on my 20th book... The only 
person outside of my immediate family that I send drafts to is Jeffrey" The Talented Mr. Epstein, By 
Vicky Ward on January, 2005 in Published Work, Vanity Fair (See article attached as Exhibit "OO"); 
(c) Epstein's housekeeper Alfredo Rodriguez testified that Dershowitz stayed at Epstein's house during 
the years when Epstein was assaulting minor females on a daily basis; (d) Rodriguez testified that 
Dershowitz was at Epstein's house at times when underage females where there being molested by 
Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz reportedly 
assisted in attempting to persuade the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that because the underage 
females alleged to have been victims of Epstein's abuse lacked credibility and could not be believed 
26 
EFTA00188891

Case 9:08-cv-807ale%
.:3498?..irt 21311560LTerNe111055-tfiRcei4SgVallef215 Page 29 of 
that they were at Epstein's house, when Dershowitz himself was an eyewitness to their presence at the 
house; (f) Jane Doe No. 102 stated generally that Epstein forced her to be sexually exploited by not 
only Epstein but also Epstein's "adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, 
businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances" — categories that Dershowitz and 
acquaintances of Dershowitz fall into; (g) during the years 2002-2005 Alan Dershowitz was on 
Epstein's plane on several occasions according to the flight logs produced by Epstein's pilot and 
information (described above) suggested that sexual assaults may have taken place on the plane; (h) 
Epstein donated $30 Million one year to the university at which Dershowitz teaches. Based on this 
information, Edwards had a reasonable basis to believe that Dershowitz might have relevant 
information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a 
possible deposition. See Dershowitz letters to the State Attorney's office attached as Exhibit "PP"; 
Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez at 278-280; Flight Logs Exhibit "MM"; Exhibits "B" and "OO"; and 
Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at /14. 
73. 
Epstein's complaint alleges that Edwards provided notice that he wished to take the 
deposition of Tommy Mattola. That assertion is untrue. Mr. Mattola's deposition was set by the law 
firm of Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart and Shipley. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ¶16. 
74. 
Edwards gave notice that he intended to take David Copperfield's deposition. Edwards 
possessed a legitimate basis for doing so. Epstein's housekeeper and one of the only witnesses who 
did not appear for deposition with an Epstein bought attorney, Alfredo Rodriguez, testified that David 
Copperfield was a guest at Epstein's house on several occasions. His name also appears frequently in 
the message pads confiscated from Epstein's house. It has been publicly reported that Copperfield 
himself has had allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by women claiming he sexually 
abused them, and one of Epstein's sexual assault victims also alleged that Copperfield had touched her 
27 
EFTA00188892

Case 9:08-cv-807ags-ItV-34t.i ggi BeNt 2N12.15605(4er_Vd0F4Igl if.{ iseatg0eliltig5 
Page 30 of 
in an improper sexual way while she was at Epstein's house. Mr. Copperfield likely has relevant 
information and deposition was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 
See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 
75. 
Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. 
Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to 
Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch. There was information indicating that 
Epstein had young girls at his ranch which, given the circumstances of the case, raised the reasonable 
inference he was sexually abusing these girls as he had abused girls in West Palm Beach and 
elsewhere. Richardson had also returned campaign donations that were given to him by Epstein, 
indicating that he believed that there was something about Epstein with which he did not want to be 
associated. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify. See Edwards 
Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 118. 
76. 
Edwards learned of allegations that Epstein engaged in sexual abuse of minors on his 
private aircraft. See Jane Doe 102 Complaint, Exhibit "B." Accordingly, Edwards pursued discovery 
to confirm these allegations. 
77. 
Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was proper in the cases brought by Edwards 
against Epstein. Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim through 
much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that 
involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at 
some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing Edwards' clients intended to pursue an 
appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant 
to other aspects of Jane Doe's claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive 
damages. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 119. 
28 
EFTA00188893

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,,cuFTBesit 291-15 Enter d 
Page
1/05 
Page 31 of 
R 
Doc 16046 hi ecgi0F40S8?1 
i
 :30 of 39 
Case 09-34791-
78. 
Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was also proper in the cases brought by Edwards 
against Epstein because of the need to obtain evidence of a federal nexus. Edwards's client Jane 
Doe was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal 
statute which (unlike relevant state statutes) established a minimum level of recovery for victims of the 
violation of its provisions. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a "federal nexus" to the 
sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by 
Epstein: first, his use of telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in 
interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, Edwards anticipated that Epstein would argue 
that Jane Doe's proof of the federal nexus was inadequate. These fears were realized when Epstein 
filed a summary judgment motion raising this argument. In response, the other attorneys and Edwards 
representing Jane Doe used the flight log evidence to respond to Epstein's summary judgment motion, 
explaining that the flight logs demonstrated that Epstein had traveled in interstate commerce for the 
purpose of facilitating his sexual assaults. Because Epstein chose to settle the case before trial, Judge 
Marra did not rule on the summary judgment motion. 
79. 
Edwards had further reason to believe and did in fact believe that the pilot and flight 
logs might contain relevant evidence for the cases against Epstein. Jane Doe No. 102's complaint 
outlined Epstein's daily sexual exploitation and abuse of underage minors as young as 12 years old and 
alleged that Epstein's plane was used to transport underage females to be sexually abused by him and 
his friends. The flight logs accordingly were a potential source of information about either additional 
girls who were victims of Epstein's abuse or friends of Epstein who may have witnessed or even 
participated in the abuse. Based on this information, Edwards reasonably pursued the flight logs in 
discovery. 
80. 
In the fall of 2009, Epstein gave a recorded interview to George Rush, a reporter with 
29 
EFTA00188894

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
i.s4culnegt 291-15 Ent 
Case 09 34791
- 
Doc 
°
160405er°Priledn0Fa1 
figtgitlyMa5 Page 32 of 
the New York Daily News about pending legal proceedings. In that interview, Epstein demonstrated an 
utter lack of remorse for his crimes (but indirectly admitted his crimes) by stating: 
• People do not like it when people make good and that was one reason he (Epstein) was 
being targeted by civil suits filed by young girls in Florida; 
• He (Epstein) had done nothing wrong; 
• He (Epstein) had gone to jail in Florida for soliciting prostitution for no reason; 
• 
If the same thing (i.e., sexual abuse of minor girls) had happened in New York, he 
(Epstein) would have received only a S200 fine; 
• Bradley J. Edwards was the one causing all of Epstein's problems (i.e., the civil suits 
brought by Jane Doe and other girls); 
• 
came to him as a prostitute and a drug user (i.e., came to Epstein for sex, rather 
than Epstein pursuing her); 
• All the girls suing him are only tying to get a meal ticket; 
• The only thing he might have done wrong was to maybe cross the line a little too 
closely; 
• He (Epstein) was very upset that Edwards had subpoenaed Ghisline Maxwell, that she 
was a good person that did nothing wrong (i.e., had done nothing wrong even though 
she helped procure young girls to satisfy Epstein's sexual desires); 
• With regard to Jane Doe 102'. Epstein, which involved an allegation that Epstein had 
repeatedly sexually abused a 15-year-old girl, forced her to have sex with his friends, 
and flew her on his private plane nationally and internationally for the purposes of 
sexually molesting and abusing her, he (Epstein) flippantly said that the case was • 
dismissed, indicating that the allegations ware ridiculous and untrue. 
See Affidavit of Michael J. Fisten attached hereto as Fihibit "QQ." 
81. 
The Rush interview also demonstrated perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein. 
Epstein lied about not knowing George Rush. See Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, taken in 
■. I. Jeffrey Epstein, case 50-2008-CA-028051, page 154, line 4 through 155 line 9, (Deposition 
attachment #7), wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize George Rush 
from the New York Daily News. This impression was given despite the fact that he gave a lengthy 
30 
EFTA00188895

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
L...1cument 291-15 Entered on F1,382 
Page
.5 Page 33 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc 1604O 
Filed 04/08/11 
 32 of 39 
personal interview about details of the case that was tape recorded with George Rush. 
Epstein's Harassment of Witnesses Against Him 
82. 
At all relevant times Edwards has a good faith basis to believe and did in fact believe 
that Epstein engaged in threatening witnesses. See Incident Report, Exhibit "A" at p. 82, U.S. 
Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "C" - Indictments drafted by Federal Government against Epstein; 
and Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at ill. 
83. 
Despite three no contact orders entered against Epstein (see Exhibit C, supra), Edwards 
learned that Epstein continued to harass his victims. For example, Jane Doe had a trial set for her civil 
case against him on July 19, 2010. As that trial date approached, defendant Epstein intimidated her in 
violation of the judicial no-contact orders. On July 1, 2010, he had a "private investigator" tail Jane 
Doe — following her every move, stopping when she stopped, driving when she drove, refusing to pass 
when she pulled over. When Jane Doe ultimately drove to her home, the "private investigator" then 
parked in his car approximately 25 feet from Jane Doe house and flashed his high beam lights 
intermittently into the home. Even more threateningly, at about 10:30 p.m., when Jane Doe fled her 
home in the company of a retired police officer employed by Jane Doe's counsel, the "private 
investigator" attempted to follow Jane Doe despite a request not to do so. The retired officer 
successfully took evasive action and placed Jane Doe in a secure, undisclosed location that night. 
Other harassing actions against Jane Doe also followed. See Motion for Contempt filed by Edwards in 
Jane Doe', Epstein detailing the event, including Fisten Affidavit attached to Motion, Composite 
Exhibit "RR." 
Epstein Settlement of Civil Claims Against Him for Sexual Abuse of Children 
84. 
The civil cases Edwards filed against Epstein on behalf of 
III., and Jane Doe 
were reasonably perceived by Edwards to be very strong cases. Because Epstein had sexually 
31 
EFTA00188896

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
,cument 291-15 Entered on Firsap 
Page1/21/205 Page 34 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc 16046 
Filed 04/08/11 
 33 ot 39 
assaulted these girls, he had committed several serious torts against them and would be liable to them 
for appropriate damages. See Preceding Undisputed Facts. Because of the outrageousness of Epstein's 
sexual abuse of minor girls, Edwards reasonably expected that Epstein would also be liable for 
punitive damages to the girls. Because Edwards could show that Epstein had molested children for 
years and designed a complex premeditated scheme to procure different minors everyday to satisfy his 
addiction to sex with minors, the punitive damages would have to be sufficient to deter him from this 
illegal conduct that he had engaged in daily for years. Epstein was and is a billionaire. See Complaint, 
149 (referring to "Palm Beach Billionaire"); see also Epstein Deposition, February 17, 2010, at 172-
176 (Deposition Attachment #7) (taking the Fifth when asked whether he is a billionaire). 
Accordingly, Edwards reasonably believed the punitive damages that would have to be awarded 
against Epstein would have been substantial enough to punish him severely enough for his past 
conduct as well as deter him from repeating his offenses in the future. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit 
"N" at 119. 
85. 
On July 6, 2010, rather than face trial for the civil suits that had been filed against him 
by 
NI, and Jane Doe, defendant Epstein settled the cases against him. The terms of the 
settlement are confidential. The settlement amounts are highly probative in the instant action as 
Epstein bases his claims that Edwards was involved in the Ponzi scheme on Epstein's inability to settle 
the II. II., and Jane Doe cases for "minimal value". His continued inability to settle the claims 
for "minimal value" after the Ponzi scheme was uncovered would be highly probative in discrediting 
any causal relationship between the Ponzi scheme and Edwards's settlement negotiations. See Edwards 
Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 121. 
Edwards Non-Involvement in Fraud by Scott Rothstein 
86. 
From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein appears to 
32 
EFTA00188897

Case 9:08-cv-80C6st gsi-1346tuRrgwit 2en
ofatergieocroF40 
c. osa l'e)W 0,15 
Page 35 of 
have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law finn of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This 
Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been 
reached with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment and/or whistle-blower 
actions. 
Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were 
available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States I Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-
COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS." 
87. 
It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used to lure investors into his 
Ponzi scheme were the cases against Epstein that were being handled by Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 
Edwards had no knowledge of the fraud or any such use of the Epstein cases. See Edwards Affidavit, 
Exhibit "N" at ¶9. 
88. 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., joined RRA in about April 2009 and left RRA in November 
2009 — a period of less than one year. Edwards would not have joined RRA had be been aware that 
Scott Rothstein was running a giant Ponzi scheme at the feint. Edwards left RRA shortly after learning 
of Rothstein's fraudulent scheme. Id. at ¶8. 
89. 
At no time prior to the public disclosure of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme did Edwards 
know or have reason to believe that Rothstein was using legitimate claims that Edwards was 
prosecuting against Epstein for any fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate purpose. Id at ¶20. 
90. 
Edwards never substantively discussed the merits of any of his three cases against 
Epstein with Rothstein. See Deposition of Bradley J. Edwards taken March 23, 2010, at 110-16. 
(hereinafter "Edwards Depo") (Deposition Attachment #22). 
91. 
On July 20, 2010, Bradley Edwards received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for 
the Southern District of Florida — the office responsible for prosecuting Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. The 
letter indicated that law enforcement agencies had determined that Edwards was "a victim (or potential 
33 
EFTA00188898

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KARA 
• 
t 9011- 
ief 
Case 06'23417OW 
striocIAOW6 Ne°c110P,4A51 
14age 
o
) 
et °W1/2M5 Page 36 of 
r 39 
victim)" of Scott Rothstein's federal crimes. The letter informed Edwards of his rights as a victim of 
Rothstein's fraud and promised to keep Edwards informed about subsequent developments in 
Rothstein's prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit "It" 
92. 
Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards, Esq., 
raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After 
investigating the claim, the Florida Bar dismissed this complaint See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" 
at ¶23. 
Epstein Takes the Filth When Asked Substantive Questions About His Claims Against Edwards 
93. 
On March 17, 2010, defendant Epstein was deposed about his lawsuit against Edwards. 
Rather than answer substantive questions about his lawsuit, Epstein repeatedly invoked his Fifth 
Amendment privilege. See Epstein Depo. taken 3/17/10, Deposition Attachment #1. 
94. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Specifically 
what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?" Id at 34. 
95. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than name people in California that 
Edwards had tried to depose to increase the settlement value of the civil suit he was handling. Id. at 
37. 
96. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you know 
former President Clinton personally." Id. 
97. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Are you now 
telling us that there were claims against you that were fabricated by Mr. Edwards?" Id at 39. 
98. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question, "Well, which 
of Mr. Edwards' cases do you contend were fabricated." Id 
99. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "What is the 
34 
EFTA00188899

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L acument 291-15 Entered on F LSD L _ _.ket 01/21/2015 Page 37 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc 1603K, 
Filed 04/08/11 
Page 36 of 39 
actual value that you contend the claim of E.W. against you has?" Id. at 45. 
100. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer a question about the actual 
value of the claim of 
and Jane Doe against him. Id. 
101. 
In his deposition, taken prior to the settlement of Edwards's clients claims against 
Epstein, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there any pending claim against you 
which you contend is fabricated?" Id. at 71. 
102. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you ever 
have damaging evidence in your garbage?" Id. at 74. 
103. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did sexual 
assaults ever take place on a private airplane on which you were a passenger?" Id. at 88. 
104. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Does a flight 
log kept for a private jet used by you contain the names of celebrities, dignitaries or international 
figures?" Id. at 89. 
105. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 89. 
106. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever socialized with Alan Dershowitz in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id at 90. 
107. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever socialized with Mr. Mottola in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 91-92. 
108. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you ever 
socialize with David Copperfield in the presence of females under the age of 18?" Id. at 
109. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever socialized with Mr. Richardson [Governor of New Mexico and formerly U.S. Representative and 
35 
EFTA00188900

Case 9:08-cv-807_36-KAM ,,cument 291-15 Entered on FLSD L.. 
aPge1/21/2015 Page 38 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc Mat, 
Filed 04/08/11 
 37 of 39 
Ambassador to the United Nations] in the presence of females under the age of 18." Id at 94. 
110. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever sexually abused children?" Id. at 95. 
111. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Did you have 
staff members that assisted you in scheduling appointments with underage females; that is, females 
under the age of 18." Id at 97-98. 
112. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "On how many 
occasions did you solicit prostitution." Id. at 102. 
113. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many 
minors have you procured for prostitution?" Id at 104. 
114. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Have you 
ever coerced, induced or enticed any minor to engage in any sexual act with you?" Id. at 107. 
115. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many 
times have you engaged in fondling underage females?" Id at 108. 
116. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "How many 
times have you engaged in oral sex with females under the age of 18?" Id. at 110. 
117. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Do you have a 
personal sexual preference for children?" Id at 111-12. 
118. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Your 
Complaint at page 27, paragraph 49, says that 'REA and the litigation team took an emotionally driven 
set of facts involving alleged innocent, unsuspecting, underage females and a Palm Beach billionaire, 
and sought to turn it into a goldmine,' end of quote. Who is the Palm Beach billionaire referred to in 
that sentence?" Id at 112-13. 
36 
EFTA00188901

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
_.cument 291-15 Entered on FL$D L_ Page 21
15 Page 39 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 16030 Filed 04/08111 
38 ot 39 
119. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Who arc the 
people who are authorized to make payment [to your lawyers] on your behalf?" Id at 120. 
120. 
In his deposition, Epstein took the Fifth rather than answer the question: "Is there 
anything in.'s Complaint that was filed against you in September of 2008 which you contend to 
be false?" Id. at 128. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September old i,2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served 
via U.S. Mail and email transmittal to all those on the attached service list. 
Jack Scarola 
Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Bamhart & Shipley 
By: 
37 
OL 
No.: 169440 
EFTA00188902

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM 
,current 291-15 Entered on FLSD L_ Ket 01/21/2015 Page 40 of 
Case 09-34791-RBR 
Doc 16048 
Filed 04/08/11 
Page 39 of 39 
SERVICE LIST 
Christopher E. Knight, Esq. 
Joseph L. Ackerman, Esq. 
P.A.
FOWLER WHITE ETJRNE'IT 
Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. 
A 
b 
Goldber er et al. 
Marc S. Nurik, Esq. 
Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik 
Gary M. Farmer, Jr. 
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, 
Edwards. Fistos & Lehrman. P.L. 
38 
EFTA00188903

EFTA00188904

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAivi Document 291-16 Entered on PLS.. Jocket 01/21/2015 Page 1 of 3 
EXHIBIT 17 
EFTA00188905

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAiv, Document 291-16 Entered on FLS Jacket 01/21/2015 Page 2 of 3 
Elvaznuuetateen 
January 14, 2015 
SEARCY 
DENNEY 
SCAROLA 
BARNHART 
Fr-SHIPLEY, 
His Royal Highness The Duke of York 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 
ROIALOS SA IMEIWAIILS 
Y.O.ROOITISIAIIHART 
T. KAPOK BAER 
LAURIE A BRIDGE 
ISMS A. SONO 
FNMA S. MO 
WARVJO GARCIA 
JAMS W.GOIRARCOLLR 
NAM RP.. liATNIA0 
ADAM S. HECHT 
JAM ...ILL 
KELLY MOM. 
IMMO IC ICELLEI.AL 
CAMERON N PENNED:I 
VIIITAU S. MO' 
WEILL Los' 
MtINYAYMIgI 
gat
OIANLANT 
SA1111tW K. SCHWAN= 
INIMIANO. MACY 
VON A. INPUTS 
CHNITORRA SPO• 
MTN B. SUWVAN 2.4
KABUL IThlY 
DONALD J. WARD 
'C. CALM MAMMA le 
0112:21RIGEL 
'EARL LOOPIET.P.. 
SPRIOIOLOENS 
'BOARD COLTER° 
Nirc
AOMRDLO 
NN 
Y 
UNNE 
hM/NW.0 
'ImssAcHustrts 
onsassen 
•ritroweentiz 
• 
• WASHNOION DC 
PARALEGALS: 
viNANAYARTIAEDA 
RN40y IA DUFRESNE 
DAVI> Vt GILMORE 
J01411 C. ROPERS 
DEBORAH/A KNAPP 
VINCENT L. MONAFIO. AFL 
AWES PETER LAW 
ROBERT W. PITGNER 
MILO PlAulACS 
KATHLEEN MON 
STEW IA SUM, 
BONNIE S. STARA 
WALTER A. STEIN 
Your Royal Highness: 
0 ysi tANAWF nut/. 
1111 
I represent attorneys Paul G. Cassell and Bradley J. Edwards. They in turn represent a 
young woman pictured below who is being referred to as Jane Doe No. 3. That 
representation is in pending legal proceedings in the United States Federal District 
Court for the Southern District of Florida. 
This letter is a formal request on behalf of Mr. Edwards and Professor Cassell to 
interview you, under oath, regarding interactions that you had with Jane Doe No. 3 
beginning in approximately early 2001. Jane Doe No. 3 was then 17 years old. 
Among other things, I would like to discuss events that occurred at the time that the 
photograph below was taken - and short! thereafter. 
WWW.SEARCYLAW.COM 
EFTA00188906

Case 9:08-cv-80736-Ktuv, Document 291-16 Entered on FLS_ Docket 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 3 
January 14, 2015 
His Royal Highness The Duke of York 
Re: Edwards and Cassell 
I would also like to discuss Jane Doe #3's claims of your subsequent interactions with 
her in New York City, New York later that year. Details of those claims have been 
widely reported in the British press (with varying degrees of accuracy) as have your 
denials of the claims , so 1 assume that it is unnecessary for me to be any more specific 
about the proposed areas of our inquiry. 
The interview could be conducted at a time and place of your choosing, and with your 
cooperation, I believe the interview could be completed in two hours or less. 
New court pleadings regarding relationships between you and Jane Doe #3 are currently 
being prepared but their £ling will be delayed if you are willing and able to commit to 
accepting this invitation. Accordingly, the favor of a prompt reply by no later 
than January 19, 2015, would be greatly appreciated. 
SCAROLA 
mep 
cc: 
Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 
Professor Paul Cassell 
EFTA00188907