Epstein Secrets

ED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

vil 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, actionable frauds,

stein, Palm Beach County Case #50200SCA028058XXXXMB), Jane Doe' (Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court Case #08-civ-80893-Marra/Johnson), and any other person who is or was represented by Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler that has not yet filed an action against Jeffrey Epstein, and any

ruptcy Estate of Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler, P.A., files this Motion for Protective Order and states: 1. On November 10, 2009, Rothstein Rosenfeld) Adler, P.A. ("RRA") was put into involuntary bankruptcy. That case is pending as In Re Estate of Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler, P,A., On November 20, 2009, Herbert

M Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. / Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8

er requiring Herbert Stettin, the State Court appointed receiver ("Receiver") and Chief Restructuring Officer ("CRO") of the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A. ("RRA") law firm, to preserve all evidence relevant to the investment scheme referenced in the Motion and further prohibit the individuals at the RR

found to be insufficient on its face and not-compliant with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)7 and TIG Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Edwards has claimed that none of the documents on the disc that were listed on his privilege log had ever been

earing transcript before the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 09-34791-BKC- RBR, in In re Rothstein Rosenfeld! Adler, P.A., in which the following were statements made by William Scherer, Razorback's counsel: • "[I]n November we filed a lawsuit in State Court and we al

M v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson; deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23, line 4; p. 38, line 22. R. 809-10, citing amended complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rot

n's complaint set forth details of a Pont scheme that Edwards, Rothstein, and others perpetrated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). (It 1-36).' The scheme included fraudulent promises to investors of multi-million dollar recoveries against Epstein from various civil act

to Take Charge of Property of \4 7/ Epst1 dn to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential ent, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- arra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

dingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION 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 obligations to the