Epstein Secrets

e is a pure question of law to be determined by the court under the facts and circumstances of each case.'" Id. (citations omitted) (citing City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla.1979)). Grounds for Reconsideration The detailed and documented facts from Epstein's affidavit quoted below, along wi

tigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or 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) (hereina

se is a pure question of law to be determined by the court under the facts and circumstances of each case.'" Id. (citations omitted) (citing City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla.1979)). UNDISPUTED GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The well-documented and undisputed facts in existence at the time Eps

]; Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN On November 20, 2009, the lawfirm of Conrad Scherer filed a complaint, Razorback cause in this case, is well established by his affidavit filed in support of his original summary judgment motion. [ci

on of law to be determined by the court under the facts and circumstances 16 EFTA00583967 of each case.'" Id. (citations omitted) (citing City of Pensacola v. Owens, 369 So.2d 328 (Fla.1979)). UNDISPUTED GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The reasonable suspicion that gives rise to probable cause for Epstei

d before he was criminally charged last month with using the firm to run a $1.2 billion investment racket."). On November 20, 2009, the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a complaint, Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Com