Epstein Secrets

currently serving that sentence. Mr. Epstein also became aware during that time that news reports that Rothstein had been disbarred and that the Florida Bar was investigating at least half of the attorneys employed by RRA in connection with Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00788142

20 21 22 23 24 25 that the unnamed conspirators of Mr. Rothstein were people who worked with Mr. Rothstein, they were being investigated by the Florida Bar as well as by the federal government. There was testimony given that these investors and these -- and there are citations to all this testimony i

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

in Cases")4 that were being used to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme.5 [Cite Epstein Affidavit]. News outlets also reported at that time that the Florida Bar had begun actively investigating dozens of attorneys employed by RRA in connection with the Ponzi Scheme. [Cite Epstein Affidavit]; Miami Herald, S

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act

ns of dollars and to fund the RRA Ponzi Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution ac

all of ua at 32 the firm went through in terms of being interviewed 33 by law enforcement and that sort of thing, I was 34 also interviewed by the Florida Bar. And one of the 25 points they raised was the fact that I was being II 15 17 IS 19 Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00798

So I served on the 12 Fourth District and served with a panel of judges 13 and heard quite a number of cafes and wrote several 14 decisions for the Fourth District. Q The jury may not be familiar with the 14 procedure, but when the appellate court reviews 17 decision➢ that are rendered and jury trial re➢ul

day of June, 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3401 By: Robert D. Cri on, Jr. Florida Bar 24162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,

ld a stay not be 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad completely ignores the likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defe

L 33602, this 25th day of June. 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 each, FL 401 By: Robert D. Cri Florida Bar Michael J. Pike Florida Bart_ Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and on, Jr. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to