Epstein Secrets

te 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 F

e of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla

asis for waiver, it is undisputed that the law firm of Conrad Scherer, through attorney William Scherer, represented investors in (e.g., victims of) Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler's Ponzi scheme, in the Razorback litigation. These investors were unquestionably adverse to both Rothstein and Edwards' law firm of which h

n-discovery portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be stripped of much of their meaning. . . . 329 U.S. 495 (1947). As later put by the Florida Supreme Court, when discussing the work-product doctrine: "A search for truth and justice can be accomplished only when all relevant facts are before the judicia

, Esq., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 on this 10th day of July, 2009. 09112/2019 26 CONFIDENTIAL 1 2 Agency to Ag

Administration 2.051, now 2.420, which was applicable in both criminal and civil cases. Sarasota-Herald Tribune, 924 So. 2d at 11. In April 2007, the Florida Supreme Court adopted emergency amendments to Rule 2.420 in response to Florida media reports of hidden cases and secret dockets, a process that has come to be k