Epstein Secrets

set forth in a Civil Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit ar attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A., deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions of justice, a

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shalom/1 v. State 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989): The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free from

multiple victims 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 formin

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

s allegedly 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, & Lehr

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

s allegedly 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, & Lehr

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