Epstein Secrets

n a cause of action 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 m

about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the

gment Motion, I believed at the time of filing my original Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm (the "Ponzi Scheme

about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the P

4) fraud. Epstein's complaint set forth details of a Pont scheme that Edwards, Rothstein, and others perpetrated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). (It 1-36).' The scheme included fraudulent promises to investors of multi-million dollar recoveries against Epstein from v

about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the

5. From in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein appears to have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been reached with putative

Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. (hereinafter referred to collectively as ) file this response to the Motion to Clarify Prior Orders (doc. #1554) of Razorback Funding, L.L.C. and other creditors (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Razorback Creditors"). The Razorback Creditors' motion seeks to "clarify" tha

gment Motion, I believed at the time of filing my original Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm (the "Ponzi Scheme

about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Po

gment Motion, I believed at the time of filing my original Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law Finn (the "Ponzi Scheme

about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the P

on Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein. Rosenfeldt. Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm (the "Ponzi scheme"

RA. At or about the same time in November 2009, the press reported that the law firm Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding. LLC, a at v. Scott W. Rothstein, a at, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi scheme invest

on Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler ("RRA"), engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm (the "Ponzi scheme"

RA. At or about the same time in November 2009, the press reported that the law firm Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi scheme inve

g independently verified; b. Berenfeld's complicity in the Ponzi scheme is further compounded by its role as accountants for RRA and Rothstein and Rosenfeldt individually, providing it with first-hand knowledge of the patent inconsistencies between Banyon's purported verified audited receivables and RRA'

Razorback Funding, LLC, et at, v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at Complex Litigation Division - Case No.: 09-062943 (19) Third Amended Complaint By ignoring evidence of t