Epstein Secrets

ctims of Jeffrey Epstein's serial molestation of dozens of young children. In 2009, Brad Edwards took a job as an attorney at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA") and continued the prosecution of those civil cases against Jeffrey Epstein. When the RRA law firm imploded, Edwards joined in forming the l

ida. That dismissal was appealed by Edwards and the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Edwards' favor, which was then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the appellate courts. On June 9, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Edwards' favor and ordered the malicious

RA. It was a form of instant messaging within the office where the messages received in the office can be deleted. I believe it was created by Mr. Adler, a way in which you can communicate about a case, invite certain people to participate, and then it can be deleted. And based on information, aga

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- the case had basically not been actively prosecuted in this court until June 2017 when the Florida Supreme Court issued its final ruling. So should the Court grant our motion, we did preserve the right to redepose Mr. Edwards on these issues. We feel not onl

taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein. Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, & Lehrman to

l Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-tide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff" as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not been, nor can it be, satisfied. See 6 EFTA00299004

The critical nature of these documents is vividly demonstrated by Rothstein's testimony during his recent deposition that he had asked Edwards or Adler to specifically set aside a flight manifest for an Epstein private jet. (Tr. Rothstein Depo 12/21/11 at 2278). Rothstein further testified that he

ed in anticipation of litigation with respondents." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictu

taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos, & Lehrman to

l Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not, nor can it, be satisfied. See Alamo rent-A-Car v. Ma