Epstein Secrets

ress conferences. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is as much as $1 billion dollars. 49. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a recent article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He state

furthering the Ponzi scheme. 42. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, BARNETT and VILLEGAS and the Litigation Team would be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflict of issues rules. 43. As a result of the fraudulent investment or

ress conferences. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is as much as $1 billion dollars. 30. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a recent article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He state

pose of furthering the Ponzi scheme. 52. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, others and the Litigation Team would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules. 53. As a result of the fraudulent investment or

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with. ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00190037 Epstein'. RRA, et al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00596500 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00729415 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00795599 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00286294 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions, 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009. article as saying that he had met with, ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00193785 Epstein'. RRA, et al. Page 14 transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of EPSTEIN'S planes. But EDWARDS asked many inflamm

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with,ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August.of 2009, but became suspicious. H

y such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00223279 Epstein RRA, at al. Page 13 including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.