Epstein Secrets

use of process claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Bradley J. Edwards. The trial judge relied in part upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse

, I believed at the time of filing my original Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm (the "Ponzi Scheme") tha

Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19); deposition of Scott W Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19); letter dated July 22, 2009 from Edwards,

with the transcript can be understood for not remembering. But Epstein moved for summary judgment on three grounds: litigation privilege that the Wolfe case compelled with, and also that we were unable to prove two elements of the malicious prosecution claim. One of them was lack of probable caus

investors who were coming down from New York, as I recollect. And the presentation was by Mr. Rothstein allegedly through some intervention by Mr. Adler. And as I recollect, that was the substance of Mr. Epstein's testimony, as it related to those issues. MR. SCAROLA: May I respectfully call the

EFTA00788139 29 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 named partner of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler -- a firm which Brad Edwards, at the time, was part of -- in funding the largest Ponzi scheme in history. It was also known -- Judge, if you look

the Court heard argument solely as to the litigation privilege. 2 EFTA00808206 the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it perta

ion for abuse of process, arising out of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme perpetrated by attorneys and staff of the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler ("RRA"), where Edwards was a partner who prosecuted actions against Epstein which were marketed by RRA to investors with the promise of multi-millio

) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMI

s justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitted to, a

s written order granting summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertai

d other media outlets reported that Scott Rothstein had fled to Morocco to evade criminal prosecution for using his law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme. It was widely reported that RRA, Rothstein and other conspirators whose identities had not yet been

6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00714923 PRELIM

s justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitted to, a

aff4/Macintosh HD Path /Users/jee/Library/Application Support/AddressBook/AddressBook-v22.abcddb SourceType Mac AddressBook First Nathan Last Wolfe Email (Work) Creation Date 2011-02-04 18:00:10 (UTC) Modification Date 2014-11-06 18:07:16 (UTC) ID 436 Contact Source Device NYCO24328.aff4/

ication Support/AddressBook/Sources/01634A06-3F78-47EC-B022-F 709788093C8/AddressBook-v22.abcddb SourceType Mac AddressBook First Natalia Last Adler Email (Work) Creation Date 2014-11-06 18:07:12 (UTC) Modification 2017-11-09 02:38:48 (UTC) Date ID 34 Contact Source Device NYCO24328.aff4/

aff4/Macintosh HD Path /Users/jee/Library/Application Support/AddressBook/AddressBook-v22.abcddb SourceType Mac AddressBook First Nathan Last Wolfe Email (Work) Creation Date 2011-02-04 18:00:10 (UTC) Modification Date 2014-11-06 18:07:16 (UTC) ID 436 Contact Source Device NYCO24353.aff4/

ication Support/AddressBook/Sources/01634A06-3F78-47EC-B022-F 709788093C8/AddressBook-v22.abcddb SourceType Mac AddressBook First Natalia Last Adler Email (Work) Creation Date 2014-11-06 18:07:12 (UTC) Modification 2017-11-09 02:38:48 (UTC) Date ID 34 Contact Source Device NYCO24353.aff4/

le cause issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the su

s justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitted to, a

lege. 11 EFTA00583962 summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertai

othstein, the partner of plaintiff Brad Edwards, had fled to Morocco to evade criminal prosecution for using their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), to perpetrate a massive Ponzi scheme. It was widely reported that RRA, Rothstein, Rothstein's partners and other co-conspirators whose iden