Epstein Secrets

d by the firm to work with 4 Stove Abrams in opening up the office here. 5 Q Did you then interview with the firm of 4 Rothstein, Rosenfoldt a Adler? 7 A Yea. Stuart and I talked, and then ho 4 introduced ma to Scott Rothstein, and that was the • interview I had. 10 Rothstein and I talked

here in 2008 you faced the economic reality of having to leave the bench. where did you than go? A I was hired by the Rothstein, Rosonfoldt a Adler firm. O How did that cone about? A As I said, I was interviewing with two firms. 10 There wore two largo firma that had offices in Palm Beach

So I served on the 12 Fourth District and served with a panel of judges 13 and heard quite a number of cafes and wrote several 14 decisions for the Fourth District. Q The jury may not be familiar with the 14 procedure, but when the appellate court reviews 17 decision➢ that are rendered and jury trial re➢ul

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

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

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

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution ac

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

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act

' Palm Beach, FL 33401..(4a: . ); and Bradley .11.. Ed4cliiliq. and, WIWate J. . .11 • L'; Blvd. 4 i $ .. Berger, Esq., Rothstn ieRosenfeldt Adler 40 East Las Olen 131 ..it'ulie .650, ) PortPortLauderdale, : • • .. i i 040., • r. .. • 1 1 O .. l: ::41 l• FL 114(fax! on this 1st y

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to