Epstein Secrets

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

on; 5) malice; 6) damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action a

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

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as

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

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as