EFTA00792811

81 
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 
and had minimal value -- and for the reasons 
I have already gone through in addressing 
what I think is going to be relevant as to 
those three individuals if the contention is 
still that these claims were not legitimate 
during the period of time that Mr. Rothstein 
ad Mr. Edwards worked together. 
MR. LINK: I just want to make this 
distinction. I don't want to beat this 
horse too much. If you look at the 
paragraph before that paragraph, it talks 
about the $500 million settlement. 
THE COURT: I will take that in 
consideration. 
MR. LINK: So it's relative to that. 
Second, Your Honor --
MR. SCAROLA: I'm sorry. I would like, 
in the few minutes remaining, to be able to 
make some points before --
THE COURT: Mr. Link, I am going to ask 
you, then, to save your commentary for 
rebuttal. 
MR. LINK: I just was trying to answer 
your questions. 
THE COURT: I didn't know I had a 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792891

82 
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 
question pending, but I appreciate it. 
MR. LINK: My pleasure. 
MR. SCAROLA: Your Honor, I have 
prepared an outline, which I hope is of some 
help to the Court in placing these issues in 
context. 
The first thing that Your Honor needs 
to determine is the issue that we have been 
focusing on. What are the factual 
allegations that we claim were maliciously 
prosecuted against Bradley Edwards? 
Now, what we have just heard is an 
effort to draw a distinction that is not 
drawn in the complaint. What we heard is we 
claim that the legitimate cases that were 
filed by Bradley Edwards while he was the 
sole practitioner somehow became 
illegitimate the moment he walked trough the 
door of RRA. That's what we just heard. 
That just doesn't make any sense. That's 
not the allegation in the complaint. 
The allegation in the complaint -- and 
as testified to by Mr. Epstein repeatedly in 
his deposition -- the allegation in the 
complaint is Bradley Edwards, quote, ginned 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792892

83 
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 
up these claims and he describes that as he 
crafted the complaints, he fabricated the 
complaints. 
Now ginned up doesn't happen to appear 
in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. But there 
are sources that define ginned up. 
The Oxford Dictionary says ginned up 
means to generate or increase something, 
especially by dubious or dishonest means. 
The McMillan dictionary: To create, to 
generate, especially artificially or by 
dubious means. 
The Free Dictionary: To create or 
produce. 
So what we are alleged to have done is 
to have generated by dubious and dishonest 
means, claims on behalf of three individuals 
who really weren't victims for the sole 
purpose -- as Mr. Epstein repeatedly 
alleges -- for the sole purpose of 
supporting a massive Ponzi scheme, in which, 
as Your Honor as observed repeatedly -- and 
I will get to this in just a moment --
Jeffrey Epstein could not possibly have been 
a victim. Didn't know about it. Didn't 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792893

84 
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 
know anybody involved in it. Didn't know it 
was going on until after it was over. 
Didn't spend a single penny investing in his 
own fabricated settlements. 
And to the extent that he claims his 
damages are attorney's fees for what was 
going on while these cases were being 
prosecuted, Your Honor is very, very 
familiar with the litigation privilege, and 
knows that nothing that went on in the 
course of the prosecution of those cases, 
whether it was legitimate or illegitimate, 
can form the basis of a separate civil 
lawsuit. 
Motion for contempt, motion to impose 
sanctions, 57.105 motion, bar complaint -- a 
lot of other remedies are available, but not 
a separate civil action, because he had to 
spend attorney's fees on what he claims were 
illegitimate discovery pursuits, which the 
evidence will show were totally and 
completely justified, and in many cases 
initiated long before Bradley Edwards ever 
became a member of RRA. 
So, even if it were not already clear 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792894

85 
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 --
THE COURT: You are talking about the 
expenditure of attorney's fees? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. That's correct. 
Could not be damages. Just can't be as a 
matter of law. 
Even if it were not already clear that 
Epstein alleged Brad fabricated the three 
cases he was prosecuting against Epstein, 
that's the only allegation that could 
possibly support a claim against Brad --
because as I mentioned -- because of the 
litigation privilege. 
But in addition to that, he suffered no 
damage from the Ponzi scheme. He didn't 
even know about it. Any action Brad took in 
the course of prosecuting those three cases, 
absolutely privileged. 
And as a matter of law, it has been 
established in this case that there was no 
evidence to support those claims, because we 
filed a motion for summary judgment. On the 
eve of the motion for summary judgment, 
without ever having filed any opposition 
whatsoever, he voluntarily dismissed those 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792895

86 
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 
claims. That issue has been resolved. 
So we must prove lack of probable cause 
as to either/or both of the two false 
claims. We have to prove Epstein did not 
have a reasonable basis to believe that Brad 
fabricated the three claims, and he didn't 
have reasonable basis to allege that Brad 
was a knowing participant in the Ponzi 
scheme. 
How do we do that when there is a Fifth 
Amendment assertion? How do we prove what 
Epstein reasonably believed when he blocks 
relevant discovery with the assertion, not 
only of a Fifth Amendment privilege, but of 
a clearly legitimate attorney-client 
privilege as well? 
And Your Honor has read the 
depositions. You know all of the relevant 
questions that were not answered with regard 
to attorney-client privilege are matched by 
the number of relevant questions to which he 
asserts attorney-client privilege as well. 
So where do we go from there? And the 
answer --
THE COURT: Take about two minutes to 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792896

87 
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 
wrap up. I want to respect the fact that I 
have already allowed Ms. Rockenbach to leave 
at 11:45. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes. Thank you. I will, 
Your Honor. 
The answer lies in a very fundamental 
presumption. And that fundamental 
presumption is every person is presumed to 
have intended the natural and probable 
consequences of his act. Very basic 
principle of law. It is cited specifically 
in the case that I have on this page. But 
it is a universal principal of law 
recognized in all American jurisdictions. 
So, proof that Epstein filed a false 
claim against Bradley Edwards gives rise to 
the presumption that he intended to file a 
false claim against Bradley Edwards. 
Florida statute 90.301 through 304 --
those are three provisions of the evidence 
code -- talk about the effect of that 
presumption -- and I won't go into that now. 
I will wait until after lunch -- but, 
basically, this lays out the way this case 
is proved. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792897

88 
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 
If we prove that these were not false 
claims, if we prove that Jeffrey Epstein 
knew they weren't false claims, because he 
was the one who physically participated in 
doing what he is alleged to have done, so he 
had to have known what he did -- once we've 
proven that, the presumption arises he 
intended to file knowingly false claims 
against Bradley Edwards and we have shifted 
the burden of proof to him to prove one of 
two things: the claims were true. That's a 
defense. The other defense is, Well, we 
know the claims were not true, but I 
reasonably believed them to be true at the 
time. 
Thank you, sir. I will leave it right 
there. 
THE COURT: Thank you, again, both 
sides for your excellent presentations. 
Thank you to our courtroom personnel as 
well. 
What we are going to do is return at 
about 1:40. I have something that I need to 
do between the lunch, which I'm going to 
leave a little early and an errand I need 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792898

89 
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 
do. So come back at 1:40. 
What I propose we will do is I will 
give you two hours this afternoon. We will 
go to about 3:40, and then proceed back with 
the remaining issues on the days that we 
have already set aside. 
Again, thank you all very much for your 
courtesies. Have a pleasant lunch. We will 
reconvene at 1:40. We will be in recess. 
Thank you. 
(A recess was had 11:48 a.m. - 1:44 p.m.) 
THE COURT: Good afternoon, everybody. 
Welcome back. Okay let's go ahead and 
proceed then. 
Mr. Scarola, you were in the midst of 
your PowerPoint. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. Yes. 
Your Honor, just to recap the point at 
which we broke off, the defense has taken 
the position that the Baxter and Frazier 
cases stand for the proposition that the 
Fifth Amendment may not be the sole basis 
upon which a plaintiff rests its case to 
satisfy the burden of proof with regard to 
any element of the plaintiff's claim. We 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792899

90 
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 
don't take issue with that. That's good 
law. 
You cannot determine from a Fifth 
Amendment adverse inference alone whether 
probable cause did or did not exist. And 
that's why I have reviewed with Your Honor 
what the other evidence is that both 
directly and circumstantially establishes 
that there was an absence of probable cause. 
We begin with a point that one is 
presumed to have intended that which one 
did. And Jeffrey Epstein when he filed 
claims, demonstrated to be false, is 
presumed to have intended to file claims 
that were false. 
We are not taking about malice yet. 
Independent of any evidence that relates to 
malice, we get to prove the truth of Brad 
Edwards' underlying claims on behalf of 
L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. 
So that then brings us --
THE COURT: I think I have already 
essentially ruled on that from a global 
standpoint. I am in agreement with you that 
any Fifth Amendment invocations as it 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792900

91 
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 
pertains to L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe --
again, globally and without getting into 
graphic -- I intend to admit as being 
relevant. 
You can proceed. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you very much, Your 
Honor. 
So we had broken off at this point 
where I began to talk about Florida Evidence 
Code sections 90.301 through 304. And I 
have a copy of those evidence code 
provisions that I will provide to the Court. 
I have provided them to opposing counsel as 
well. 
THE COURT: Thank you. 
MR. SCAROLA: These provisions focus on 
the shifting burden of proof, what a 
presumption does and what a presumption does 
not do. And I have underlined some sections 
here for Your Honor that I think are of 
particular significance in those three 
evidence code provisions. 
And basically the gist of these 
evidence code provisions is that once we 
have proven that these were false claims, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792901

92 
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 
once we have adduce proof that these were 
false claims, and take advantage of the 
presumption that the filing of knowingly 
false claims gives rise to one is presumed 
to have intended to do that, which one did, 
and presumed to have intended the natural 
and probably consequences of filing false 
claims, then the burden shifts. 
And that's the point at which we broke 
for lunch, where I pointed out that at that 
point Mr. Epstein has every right to come in 
and say, now, Wait a second. You have put 
on evidence that these were false claims --
I mean, that these were valid claims, but I 
have the right to come in put on evidence 
that they were not valid claims. And he 
absolutely does. 
THE COURT: I think that was the gist 
of my point I made earlier regarding the 
fact that we can't take it from one side 
only. And that if the proof is essentially 
within the invocation of the Fifth 
Amendment, i.e., the questions that were 
asked that would be pertinent to the issues 
of probable cause but refuse to be answered, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792902

93 
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 
then Edwards should not be penalized because 
of that. 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And I 
certainly agree with it. And that's why I 
made the comment that it becomes significant 
when the defense stands up during the course 
of this argument and says we are not 
claiming that these were fabricated claims 
at the point in time at which Brad Edwards 
is a sole practitioner. We're claiming they 
became fabricated claims after he joined 
RRA. And then I guess what they're saying 
is they're unfabricated when he settled them 
for $5.5 million. 
If he wants to try to make that 
argument to the jury, that's fine. He can 
try to make that argument to the jury. I 
don't think it's going to go anywhere as a 
matter of fact, nor do I think it's going to 
go anywhere as a matter of law. But he can 
try it. He can try to say the valid claims 
got unvalidated and then got validated 
again, and I settled them for $5.5 million. 
At any rate, the burden does shift to 
him. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792903

94 
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 
Now, he can also say that these were 
valid claims, but I reasonably believe them, 
mistakenly, but reasonably believed them to 
be invalid claims. I had probable cause to 
support my malicious prosecution claim, 
because I thought, mistakenly, but 
reasonably, that they were invalid claims. 
Then we get to the fact that Epstein 
cannot reasonably believe what Jeffrey 
Epstein knows to be false. 
And Jeffrey Epstein knows whether he 
molested these children or he didn't molest 
these children. 
So if we prove that he molested them, 
he cannot contend he reasonably believed 
that he didn't molest them. 
We proved he knew the cases were 
fabricated with proof that he actually 
molested L.M, E.W. and Jane Doe. We proved 
that these were not ginned up cases. These 
were not fabricated or created, not ginned 
up by proving that he settled them for $5.5 
million, not while he was under some 
misapprehension about what these cases were 
all about, but after the Ponzi scheme was 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792904

95 
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 
fully and completely disclosed. After he 
read all of these news articles that he 
claims that he relied on -- or that his 
lawyers claimed he relied on, because he 
hasn't made those claims, but his lawyers 
have made those claims -- and we proved the 
cases weren't fabricated, with proof of his 
guilty plea to the molestation of children 
with his Fifth Amendment assertion. Because 
his Fifth Amendment assertion at that point 
clearly is relevant and material, and an 
adverse inference can be drawn from that. 
We proved that he did not have a basis 
to file these claims, because he fails to 
defend against the summary judgment, 
voluntarily dismisses the cases, and never 
refiles them. 
No question about the fact that at this 
important in time there has been a bona fide 
resolution of his claims in favor of Bradley 
Edwards. And we proved the cases were not 
ginned up by proving similar fact evidence. 
And Your Honor made some reference to 
this, but I want to be sure that we focus 
specifically on this aspect of the case, 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792905

96 
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 one of the things that the defense 
is attempting to exclude is any reference to 
anything other than L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe 
cases. 
Your Honor suggested -- and I thought 
that I heard you correctly -- that evidence 
with regard to other claims actually filed 
against Epstein would be relevant and 
material. And clearly it is. 
THE COURT: I believe what I said was 
those cases filed by Mr. Edwards were any 
claims that were made against Epstein by a 
client represented by Mr. Edwards. 
Tell me why you think that the 
aggregate cases not having anything to do 
with Mr. Edwards' representation or 
Rothstein firm's representation -- because 
Mr. Berger, I think, was involved in some 
respects as well. 
MR. SCAROLA: Co-counsel. 
THE COURT: Solely as co-counsel -- I 
believe that to be the case -- are you 
suggesting that the aggregate cases would be 
relevant? 
MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. And they are 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792906

97 
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 
relevant for multiple reasons. 
Your Honor will recall the chart that 
was put up by opposing counsel that 
attempted to summarize all of those things 
that Jeffrey Epstein could have reasonably 
relied upon to -- I guess what they're 
saying now is mistakenly conclude that Brad 
Edwards was part of this Ponzi scheme. And 
among those things that are referenced in 
that chart were Brad Edwards' efforts to --
for example -- and this is only one 
example -- to take discovery from pilots 
about what was going on on Jeffrey Epstein's 
private planes when all of Brad Edwards' 
three clients acknowledged that they were 
not passengers on the planes. 
And that is true. It is true that all 
of Brad Edwards' clients acknowledged that 
they were not passengers on Jeffrey 
Epstein's private jets. But both the 
Florida Evidence Code and federal rules of 
evidence expressly permit the federal rules 
are very explicit about this: Expressly 
admit the introduction of evidence with 
regard to other child molestations in any 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792907

98 
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 
child molestation claim. 
THE COURT: So let's talk about that 
for a minute. Because again, what I don't 
want this to turn into is a case testing 
whether or not Epstein was an alleged serial 
child molester. It would not, in my view, 
pass muster legally, and I don't want to try 
this case twice. 
I think that we should be extremely 
circumspect when it deals -- when we are 
dealing with global issues of molestation of 
graphic descriptions of any types of alleged 
molestation, except where we are dealing 
with claims that have been brought on behalf 
of those represented by Mr. Edwards. 
The risk of error, if we go beyond that 
intended limitation, is significant. And I 
want to make sure that we, again, are 
focused on the elements of the claim. And 
whether it be for compensatory damages 
associated with Mr. Edwards' claim or 
punitive damages associated with 
Mr. Edwards' claim, we are still dealing 
with a malicious prosecution claim, solely a 
malicious prosecution claim. 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792908

99 
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 
And so to deviate from that direction 
would be precarious and concerning to the 
Court, in particular, because when we're 
dealing with issue of probable cause, we're 
focusing on -- as I've made clear -- not 
only Mr. Epstein's stated intent, but I 
fully intend to allow circumstantial 
evidence, inclusive of the invocation of the 
Fifth Amendment relevant questions 
pertaining to the plaintiff's -- the 
counter-plaintiff's, more precisely --
Mr. Edwards' position to explain to the jury 
why -- or to the Court -- why Mr. Epstein 
brought this claim. What were the true 
motivating factors concerning same. 
To allow this to intrude into 
allegations of serial molestation is 
dangerous and is concerning. 
You may proceed. 
MR. SCAROLA: Thank you, Your Honor. I 
acknowledge the legitimacy of the Court's 
concern. And I recognize the fact that the 
Court, appropriately, under Rule 403 must 
balance probative value against prejudice. 
However, as soon as Mr. Epstein takes 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792909

100 
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 position, as he has in this 
demonstrative exhibit that --
THE COURT: Show me where, please. 
MR. SCAROLA: Let's go through these 
and -- let me zoom in. On this top line are 
all of those circumstances subsequent to 
4/9/09 when Bradley Edwards became a member 
of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, which 
counsel says gave raise to a reasonable 
suspicion that Bradley Edwards was a knowing 
participant in the Ponzi scheme and was 
using fabricated claims to support that 
Ponzi scheme. 
Let's take them one at a time. 
Jane Doe move to unseal the 
non-prosecution agreement. 
Now, the non-prosecution agreement is 
expressly referenced in the complaint, as is 
the Crime Victims' Rights Act case. 
So if Jeffrey Epstein is going to say 
efforts to unseal the non-prosecution 
agreement contributed to his reasonable 
belief that Bradley Edwards was a knowing 
participant in the Ponzi scheme, we need 
explain what the non-prosecution agreement 
DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD 
EFTA00792910