Epstein Secrets

the main individual who advised those assembled in 7 the room that that's what was going to occur? 8 A. I don't remember. 9 Q. Was it -- did Rosenfeldt speak at all at 10 that meeting? 11 A. I, I can't remember. 1.2 Q. Do you remember the date of the meeting? 13 A. I remember that it was a

18 BY MR. CRITTON: 19 Q. Okay. I'll remember that. With regard 20 to, so as to whether or not Mr. Rothstein could have 21 accessed it or Mr. Rosenfeldt or anyone else who was 22 not an invitee at least from your knowledge, you 23 believe they cannot access it? l4 A. Correct. Q. Can you as we

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG Complex Litigation, Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1201 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, -vs- VOLUME I OF II SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and III. individual

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

s and the defenses in the litigation"). W. The information simply falls under the "highly protected category of opinion work-product." Id; see also Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.280. Also, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 in the Federal companion cases apparently obtained a copy of the file retained by the Palm Beach State

, EPSTEIN states: I. Introduction As this court is aware, attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obl

vidence that would be inadmissible at trial, so long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 1.280(b), Fla.R.Civ.P. (2008). Wherefore, Epstein requests that this court grant the relief requested herein, including, but not limited to, ordering that Edwards retu

y, EPSTEIN states: I. Introduction As this court is aware, attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obl

vidence that would be inadmissible at trial, so long as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 1.280(b), Fla.R.Civ.P. (2008). Wherefore, Epstein requests that this court grant the relief requested herein, including, but not limited to, ordering that Edwards retu