Epstein Secrets

raudulent court 10 EFTA00596534 Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of 36 order purportedly signed by a Federal District Court Judge which falsely alleged that the clients had prevailed in the lawsuit and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent co

ren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes L.M. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromise

raudulent court 10 EFTA00193860 Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of 36 order purportedly signed by a Federal District Court Judge which falsely alleged that the clients had prevailed in the lawsuit and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent co

ren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) 1. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes L.M. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromise

raudulent court 10 EFTA00223313 Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of 36 order purportedly signed by a Federal District Court Judge which falsely alleged that the clients had prevailed in the lawsuit and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent co

eren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes'''. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he

fraudulent court 10 EFTA00729449 Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 11 of 36 order purportedly signed by a Federal District Court Judge which falsely alleged that the clients had prevailed in the lawsuit and were owed a judgement of approximately $23 million. The fraudulent co

s weren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he