Epstein Secrets

0 of Count 1 of the Information are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 2. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count below, at Broward and Miami- Dade Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHS I EIN, did knowingly and with intent to

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

0 of Count 1 of the Information are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 2. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count below, at Broward and Miami- Dade Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, did knowingly and with intent to d

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and ■.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to th

ough 40 of Count 1 of the Information ed herein by reference. are realleged an inco ( t r 2. about the dates enumerated as to each count below, at Broward and Miami- Dad.e Counties', in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, did knowingly and with intent to

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

0 of Count 1 of the Information are realleged and incorporated herein by reference. 2. On or about the dates enumerated as to each count below, at Broward and Miami- Dade Counties, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, did knowingly and with intent to d

TEIN, EDWARDS and L.M. possessed ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process. 72. As a result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s actions, EPSTEIN suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all th