Epstein Secrets

Disclosure to Adversary Constitutes Waiver As a threshold basis for waiver, it is undisputed that the law firm of Conrad Scherer, through attorney William Scherer, represented investors in (e.g., victims of) Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler's Ponzi scheme, in the Razorback litigation. These investors were unquesti

rsary in the Razorback Litigation. Edwards waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection claimed in the e- mails by producing them to Conrad Scherer in the Razorback litigation. Section 90.507, Florida Statutes governs this type of waiver by voluntary disclosure and provides: Waiver of privilege

his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait

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

uments identified on his 159-page privilege log. In addition, Edwards' counsel suggested that Link & Rockenbach received the evidence from attorney William Scherer (Razorback's counsel). Although that is inaccurate, it demonstrates that any potential work-product protection has been waived by virtue of producti

years ago (for whatever expedient or economic reason) to voluntarily give away the allegedly attorney-client privileged and work product e-mails to Conrad Scherer in the Razorback litigation triggered section 90.507. After taking steps inconsistent with the maintenance of privileges in confidential information

his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait

]; 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

his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait

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