Epstein Secrets

se cases involving Epstein); b. Reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers; c. Used investor money to pay plaintiffs (i.e., L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up front" money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the Civil Actions; d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conver

ed she worked at eleven (11) separate strip clubs, including Cheetah which RRA represented and in which ROTHSTEIN may have owned an interest; and E.W. also worked at Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach, which was the subject of a recent police raid where dancers were allegedly selling prescriptio

consent of Defendant Scott W. Rothstein's counsel, Mark Nurik, Esq., a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served via email on Mr. Nurik, at [email protected]. This 3rd day of November, 2009. 'Si Fla LA M. Baia.i 9 COFFEY B URLINGTON OFFICE IN THE. GROVE, PENTHOUSE 2699 SOU I H

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 3rd day of November, 2009, with the agreement and consent of Defendant Scott W. Rothstein's counsel, Mark Nurik, Esq., a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served via email on Mr. Nurik, at [email protected]. This 3rd day of November, 2009.

se cases involving Epstein); b. Reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers; c. Used investor money to pay plaintiffs (i.e., L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up front" money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the Civil Actions; d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conver

ed she worked at eleven (11) separate strip clubs, including Cheetah which RRA represented and in which ROTHSTEIN may have owned an interest; and E.W. also worked at Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach, which was the subject of a recent police raid where dancers were allegedly selling prescriptio

and consent of Defendant Scott W. Rothstein's counsel, Mark Nurik E a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served via email on Mr. Nurik, at This 3rd day of November, 2009. s; S 9 COFFEY B URLINGTON OI+ICk IN THE DROVE. PENTHOUSE 2699 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33 133

t court. 2 At the March 8, 2018 hearing, University of Utah Law Professor, Paul G. Cassell, Esq., appeared pro hac vice below for non-parties L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, on a limited confidentiality issue not before this Court. On behalf of non-parties, L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, Mr. Cassell filed an Uno

d from this case on August 9, 2010. (App. 5). 5 EFTA00793697 all claims in the December 7, 2009 Complaint. (App. 4). Rothstein retained counsel, Mark Nurik, who moved to set aside the default, but an order was never entered on that motion. Mr. Nurik has not withdrawn from this case and has been on the

Complaint. (App. 4). Rothstein retained counsel, Mark Nurik, who moved to set aside the default, but an order was never entered on that motion. Mr. Nurik has not withdrawn from this case and has been on the service list since 2010. On April 12, 2011, Epstein filed an Amended Complaint against Rothste

state court civil action on behalf of L.M. 31. On or about October 17, 2009, Edwards, who had filed a state complaint against Epstein on behalf of E.W., emailed his assistant to file a federal complaint against Epstein on behalf of E.W like the one he had filed in federal court on behalf of L.M.. 3

assets to avoid paying any judgments that may be obtained by RRA clients against Epstein; g) On August 13, 2009 an email was sent from Rothstein to Mark Nurik ("Nurik"), an attorney at RRA, regarding legal research on causes of action against Epstein. On that same day, Nurik sent an email to Rothstein reg

as sent from Rothstein to Mark Nurik ("Nurik"), an attorney at RRA, regarding legal research on causes of action against Epstein. On that same day, Nurik sent an email to Rothstein regarding discussions about Epstein. Also on August 13, 2009, Adler sent an email to Rothstein regarding legal research o

S to strike. 14 THE MITNESS: Ho. Is BY MR. SCAROLA: IS Q If Jeffrey Epstein alleges in this 19 complaint against Bradley Edwards that III., E.W. or 24 Jane Doe voluntarily consented to their sexual 21 molestation, could Jeffrey Epstein have possibly made 22 that claim on the basis of any

f them wore appealed. I wa➢ reversed a number of times. 23 0 Rough gue➢➢? 24 A I Couldn't tell you. I couldn't tell you how 2S many [limos. Nurik or Rothstein -- did they feel bullied or 2 threatened by Epstein lawyer➢? MR. SCAAOLA: Objection, predicate. 4 THE WITNESS: You are assuming tha