Epstein Secrets

rocess 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 of process

, 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,

Y,TALBOTT B ROBERTSON JR,HARRISON M FORMAN,MARCIA L VANHELLEMONT,ROBERT W KAPN

INIUM ASSOCIATION INC MILLNER,GUY W ADLER,FREDERICK LAUDER,JOSEPH JOHNSON,CHA

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 pertained to his

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

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 PRELIMINARY STATEM

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

u're holding the money, which 9 you're free to. But I don't know, even under the 10 best of circumstances and the best relationship 11 with Mr. Foreman, that I have the authority to 12 waive his fee. Arid that doesn't exist currently -- 13 certainly monetarily. So... 14 MR. JOSEPH GELLER: If I m

e. 22 MR. STETTIN: Jurisdiction, in fact, is in 23 the bankruptcy court over the assets of the debtor. 2 4 That's the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler firm. 25 This Court's continuing jurisdiction will be, 4 .61111•••••• (561) 832-7500 2 (Pages 2 to 5) PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (56

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 pertained to his

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

ldes 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 PRELIMINARY STATE

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

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 summary judgm

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

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 pertained to his

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