Epstein Secrets

pon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitte

ized that it has been "expansively interpreted" by Florida courts. In Microbilt Corporation v. Cher Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 6628619 (Dec. 16, 2013), the Bankruptcy Court, applying Florida law, avowed: The rule of absolute immunity extends to the parties, judges, witnesses, and counsel involved and related to the jud

se and question his credibility, not because they will cause any undue prejudice because of their alleged late disclosure." Page 10 "A. Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler E-mails Epstein identified and disclosed a number of emails from the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Alder firm that directly contradict sworn

any argument for an in camera review or other relief with respect to the e-mails in this Court or the appellate court or from defending himself in the Bankruptcy Court." 13 EFTA00808716 B. Fourth DCA D.E. Date Document 03/14/18 Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' Motion for Partial Relief from St

's Pre-Trial Order. 2. Included within that submission was extensive internal email correspondence from Edwards' time as an attorney at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler. These emails were admittedly obtained from a CD that Epstein's current counsel acquired from its predecessor counsel, Fowler White. 3.

er White's possession and retention of the CD at issue is currently the subject of a Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court on March 19, 2018. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing on that motion for April 13, 2018. 4 EFTA00811314 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.

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

the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise."). B. Discovery Issues Related to the State Court Issued Subpoenas Are Not Properly Before the Bankruptcy Court The Razorback Creditors are also attempting to litigate issues relating to discovery in state court cases before this bankruptcy court. But neither

pon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal Ponzi scheme operated through their law firm. Rothstein himself admitte

en "expansively interpreted" by Florida courts. In 13 EFTA00714936 Microbilt Corporation v. Chex Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 6628619 (Dec. 16, 2013), the Bankruptcy Court, applying Florida law, avowed: The rule of absolute immunity extends to the parties, judges, witnesses, and counsel involved and related to the jud