IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶
CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Plaintiff(s),¶
vs.¶
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN. individually, J. , individually, and L.M., individually,¶
Defendant(s).¶
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE ADDRESSING SCOPE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE¶
Pursuant to Florida Statute §90.404 BraS;yS A I , by and through his undersigned counsel, files this Supplement to his 3, 2017 Motion in Limine to address the scope of admissible evidence in the if nding malicious prosecution claim, and as grounds therefore states as follows:¶
Summary¶
In additi6n and in furtherance of the reasons set forth in the Motion in Limine Addressing k" ope of Admissible Evidence, the following allegations from Epstein's Initial Complai filed on December 7, 2009 and questions and answers from Epstein's deposition taken on March 17, 2010 support a request that the Court grant the Motion in Limine and confirm that evidence of Epstein's extensive pattern of victimization of minor females is admissible in this malicious prosecution case based upon the filing of the Initial Complaint on December 7, 2009.¶
A. Epstein's Initial Complaint Alleged that the L.M., E.W, and Jane Doe cases were "Manufactured" for the "Sole Purpose" of Funding Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme¶
In his Initial Complaint filed on December 7, 2009 against Mr. Epstein made the following allegations:¶
1 49: " . . . rather than evaluating and resolving the [three victim] the merits (i.e. facts) which included knowledgeable, voluntary a sensual actions bierA of the claimants' . . . RRA and the Litigati which included as defined] sought through protective ord ections to block relevant discovery regarding their claimants."¶
". . . In order to continue to bring in monies other co-conspirators used the Civil Actions [de being pursued by Brad, along wit a means of obtaining massive amounts of m estors, Rothstein and e three victim cases ufactured lawsuits, as¶
Epstein therefore alleged that any sex k and Jane Doe were consensual and that ere s no valid basis for the lawsuits being pursued on those victim's behalf ra y Epstein specifically alleged that those victims' claims were p own number of "manufactured lawsuits" being pursued against Epstein. Initial Complaint further stated that Mr. pursued his clients' "manufa ,wi red" v c ims for the "sole purpose" of funding Rothstein's Ponzi scheme: ions between he and L.M., E.W.,¶
;By using the Civil Actions against Epstein as `bait' and fabricating ents regarding same, Rothstein and others were able to lure investors into Ro lair and bilked [sic] them of millions of dollars which, in turn, was used to fund the litigation against Epstein for the sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme."¶
I Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis is supplied.¶
Epstein, all of which "manufactured acts were the "sole The following questions swers took place at the March 17, 2010 deposition of Jeffrey ? lital5nsistent with Epstein's underlying claim that Mr. on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, despite the fact that any sexual ese victims and Epstein were "knowledgeable, voluntary and consensual," for se" of furthering Rothstein's Ponzi scheme.¶
adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAC Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of Admissible Evidence¶
There can therefore be no question that, as it relates to probable cause and malice, one of the key issues in this malicious prosecution claim is whether Epstein had a good-faith belief that the LM, EW, and Jane Doe claims were "manufactured" for the "sole purpose" of funding a Ponzi scheme. In support of this spurious claim, Epstein alleged that any sexual contact ese minor children was "knowledgeable, voluntary, and consensual." Mr. urden of proof to establish that Epstein lacked probable cause for these allegations, pstein had in fact molested and abused these children over the course of years. and is certainly entitled to, demonstrate to the members asserted by these victims against Jeffrey Epstein, w S 'I " that Epstein had actual malice when he brought, which was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate his victims and their attom has every intention to, the truth of the claims being provide circumstantial evidence¶
A B. Epstein Confirmed in His D iit That Mr. "Ginned Up" and "Crafted" the aims Made By His Clients"¶
Deco. Tr. Page 13. lines 8-21 (alleging that victim L.M. was part of a conspiracy to create "fraudulent" and "fabricated" cases):¶
Q. Why are you suing L.M.?¶
MR. PIKE: Form.¶
A: L.M. is part of a conspiracy with Scott Rothstein, creating —excuse me — creating fraudulent cases of a sexually charged nature in which the U.S.bAt yte has already charged the firm of Rothstein, a firm of which is a partner, was a partner, with creating, fabricating malicious cases of a sexual nature, including cases with respect to me, specifically, in order to fleece unsuspecting investors in South Florida out of millions of dollars.
¶
Dep. Tr. page 25. lines 6-25 (alleging that Mr. clients' claims we multi-million dollar damages that were being alleged): A'? ,rth the¶
Q. Besides having gone to the media in an attempt to, q these allegations and engaged in what you contend be proceedings, what else did Mr. personally, lawsuit? n up, unquote, vant discovery nns the basis for this¶
A. Mr. , personally, engag lu artners, Scott Rothstein, who sits in a Federal jail cell, potentially fo f his life, he shared information, what I've been told and -- excuse m e read in the newspapers, 13 boxes of information that had my name on with other attorneys at his firm. He counseled his clients to illintain positions alleging multi-million dollar damages in order for them o scam local investors out of millions of dollars. He and his — many of his other partners already under investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney havetbeen accused by the U.S. Attorney of running a criminal enterprise.¶
De •. Tr. 30 lines 6- leging that Mr. IIME clients' claims were "false"):¶
Q.: Wha ese other people tell you Mr. did with respect to going to other to 9¶
E: Form.¶
A: Mr. went to the media to gin up his cases in order that the Rothstein firm could generate profits, falsely taking in investors, creating false stories to the local medias and making statements to local press regarding false claims made by his clients in order that Scott Rothstein, who currently sits in jail, could defraud, along with his other partners of his firm, local Florida investors, Mr. Scarola, out of millions of dollars.¶
Dep. Tr. Page 12. lines 12-21 (stating that "gin up these allegations" means to "craft" allegations, which included those brought by victim L.M.):¶
Q. What does "gin up these allegations" mean?¶
MR. PIKE: Form.¶
A: It means craft allegations of multi-million dollar cases; in fact L.M.'s case dame es of $50-million, settlements in order for Sco Mein and the rest of Mr. partners to fleece unsuspecting investo ou f illions and millions of dollars based on cases that didn't exist or allele d that I had settled.¶
Epstein also repeatedly asserted his 5th Amendment :e with regards to questions related to certain questions regarding his sexual mot f L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. 7 Obviously, the fact that Epstein never intended •• ot5th Ns Amendment privilege when he brought this underlying claim is relevant atidGiate to whether Epstein had probable cause to initiate this proceeding in the first pla¶
C Epstein's Initial Comp ed LM, EW, and Jane Doe's Cases "Were Weak and Had Minimal Value¶
Along with allegi yt the three specific victim cases were "manufactured" for the "sole purpose" of fiindip (Sa Po ,rheme, sc Epstein's Initial Complaint repeatedly states that these cases had no real v¶
othstein and the Litigation Team knew or should have known that heir three (3) filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons..."¶
111: "Defendant, L.M., . . . was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things substantially changing prior sworn testimony, so as to assist the Defendants in promoting their fraudulent scheme for the promise of a multi-million dollar recovery relative to the Civil Actions . . . involving Epstein, which was completely out of proportion to her alleged damages."¶
Ell: "Rothstein, with the intent and improper motive to magnify his financial gain so [sic continue to fund the fraudulent and illegal investment and/or Ponzi scheme, had demand excessive money from Epstein in the Civil Actions."
¶
46: ".. . However, the actual facts behind [L.M.'s] action would never support such extraordinary damages."
¶
1151:- . .. Plaintiff Epstein has incurred and continues to incur mone tig ama including, but not limited to, having to pay an amount in aces o e Civil Actions' true value..."
¶
Whether the cases brought by victims L.M., E.W., and Jane re valid claims with real value therefore goes directly to both the probable cause ce elements of Mr. malicious prosecution claim. Did Epstein have probable ege that the claims were "weak and had minimal value," and that L.M.'s claim i cu was supported by facts that "would never support such extraordinary damages"9 in, pstein's allegation in paragraph 49 is true and the contact with those children w geable, consensual, and voluntary," then the jury may conclude that Epstein h C j e cause to allege that those claims were instead "manufactured" for the "sole p ' of furthering Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. But when the jury learns that Epstein really lest these young girls (for which he paid $5.5 million in settlement monies), and tha upon their age it was legally impossible to consent to Epstein's sexual molestatio ry will determine that not only did Epstein lack probable cause for his allegatio but he had actual malice at the time the allegations were made. That evidence further supports the conclusion that the true purpose was to intimidate Epstein's numerous victims and their attorneys, specifically Mr. MI, from continuing to prosecute victim claims, or to¶
compromise claims below their true value. Those factual issues that Epstein's Initial Complaint put directly in contention should be, and will be, decided by the jury2.¶
D. Although Epstein Conceded that He Paid L.M. for Some Form ofSex, the ' 1 Complaint Also Alleged that L.M. Was a Liar¶
Although Epstein concedes in paragraph 46(a) that he was "one o 's any 'Johns'," he nonetheless insists that Mr. "manufactured" L.M.'s cl fo the "sole purpose" of furthering Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. In furtherance of these ons, Epstein attacked L.M.'s credibility in detail throughout the Initial Complaint. , Epstein claimed that L.M.'s case was "weak and had minimal value" because i of have any type of sex with Epstein (see I 42(h)(i)), she did not perform oral n em (see I 42(j)), and that Epstein did not coerce, induce or entice L.M. to corn s of sexual misconduct. (see I 47(b)). Because L.M.'s claim was false, Epstein th 'the actual facts behind her action would never support such extraordinary damages" ( 6), and instead L.M.'s claim was manufactured to further Rothstein's Ponzi schemeIcelabf 7).¶
Certain er Epstein had in fact abused and molested L.M. is therefore clearly relevant t ble cause and malice.¶
E. E ein's Initial complaint Alleged that the Broad Range of Discovery Engaged in By Mr. Was Performed Solely to Further Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme¶
2maintains that at the close of the evidence the material undisputed facts will require the Court to direct a verdict in favor of on the issue of probable cause. That is,tes lack of probable cause to support his claims against will be determined as a matter of law in a' favor, particularly given the preclusive effect of Epstein's Fifth Amendment assertions.¶
Epstein also alleged that the broad range of the discovery conducted by into matters with no direct tie to clients supports a reasonable suspicion that was fabricating claims to support the Ponzi scheme. Specifically, Epstein alleges that Mr. pursued "a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the trt or value of [his] clients' claims." (1 Summary of Action). In support thereof, Epstei ec l c aiLnged virtually every litigation decision that Mr. made in pursuing the clai y L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, including for example:¶
1 31(e): "[Mr. I utilized the judicial proce unreasonable and unnecessary discovery, fo\ Ponzi scheme." g, but not limited to, urpose of furthering a¶
1.3_1: "[Mr. I relentlessly and pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights Epstein these famous individuals knowing full well that no underage wo nboard and no illicit activities took place."¶
1 41: "The sole purpos profile friends/acquain to investors." heduling of these depositions or listing high tential witnesses was, again, to `pump' the cases¶
1 42(a)-(I): Challe i l!" n a litany of litigation decisions made by Mr. as being mad ely ' *]n furtherance of the[] fraudulent scheme against Epstein."¶
1 44: actions described in paragraph 42 above herein had no legitimate p i ursuing the Civil Actions against Epstein, but rather were meant to e fraudulent scheme and criminal activity of Rothstein so that he and o rs could fraudulently overvalue the settlement value of existing and nonex' ent claims against Epstein to potential investors."¶
". ... actions constitute fraud upon Epstein as . . . the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the best interests of their clients in mind at all times when in reality, they were acting in furtherance of the investment of Ponzi scheme described herein"¶
victims other than the three clients represents k \ s These allegations were made in support of the theme of Epstein's Initial Complaint: that had "manufactured" his clients' claims for the "sole purpose" of furthering Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. Whether Epstein knew, at the time he made them, that the allegations listed above were in fact false therefore goes directly to the elements of probable cause and and Mr. is entitled to establish to the members of the jury that Epstein ese allegations were false at the time he made them because (1) underage females ally assaulted on Epstein's airplane; (2) some of Epstein's high-profile friends/a ai es were onboard when those assaults occurred; (3) because pursuant to Florida .404(2) and Federal Rule of Evidence 415(G), evidence of other acts of sexual a ild molestation by Epstein against was clearly admissible and the discovery into such other criminal uct entirely proper; and (4) because L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe had punitive damage nding against Epstein, the full scope of his punitive conduct was properly subject t¶
adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of Admissible Evidence¶
F. Epstein's Initial aint Alleged Thata Had Not Molested Numerous Children, and That He amaged By Mr. Truthful Assertions to the Contrary¶
One of i A tions in paragraph 42 that Epstein alleged had "no legitimate purpose in pursuing ctions against Epstein, but rather [was] meant to further the [Ponzi scheme]," was the wing statement made by Mr. to a Federal Court on July 21, 2009:¶
What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as far as ow investigation and resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about give, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children ... and it is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 people working¶
underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls.
¶
(142(e)). Epstein then alleges, in paragraphs 50, 51, and 52, that he has been damaged, in part, by Mr. M' contention that Epstein is a serial and unrepentant child molester.¶
It is therefore beyond dispute that, in prosecuting his malicious pro ion aim, Mr. has the burden of proof to establish that Epstein did not have a • asis to allege that he was damaged by Mr. proclamation to the Federal court Qalong with the host of other spurious and malicious allegations contained in the Complaint). Why? Because Epstein really did molest all those young, innocent chi us crimes that he has callously compared to "stealing a bagel."¶
For the foregoing reasotj.E acs respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of ssible Evidence. ?*¶
[REDACTED] adv. Epstein¶
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶
Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of Admissible Evidence¶
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 1st day of NOV., 2017.¶
JACK SCAROLA
Florida Bar No.: 169440
DAVID P. VITALE JR.
Florida Bar No.: 115179
Attorney E-Mail(s): jsx@searcylaw.com and
mep@searcylaw.com
Primary E-Mail: _scarolateam@searcylaw.com
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Phone: (561) 686-6300
Fax: (561) 383-9451
Attorneys for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]¶
[REDACTED] adv. Epstein¶
Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶
Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of Admissible Evidence¶
COUNSEL LIST¶
Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire
jgoldberger@agwpa.com;
smahoney@agwpa.com
Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-659-8300
Fax: (561)-835-8691
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶
Nichole J. Segal, Esquire
njs@FLAppellateLaw.com;
kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.
444 W Railroad Avenue, Suite 350
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-721-0400
Attorneys for [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]¶
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Esquire
staff.efile@pathtojustice.com
425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-524-2820¶
Scott J. Link, Esquire
Eservice@linkrocklaw.com;
Scott@linkrocklaw.com;
Kara@linkrocklaw.com;
Angela@linkrocklaw.com;
Tanya@linkrocklaw.com
Link & Rockenbach, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Suite 301
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561)-727-3600
Fax: (561)-727-3601
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein¶
Marc S. Nurik, Esquire
marc@nuriklaw.com
One E Broward Blvd., Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954)-745-5849
Fax: (954)-745-3556
Attorneys for Scott Rothstein¶