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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A complete failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessaril

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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders

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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders