Epstein Secrets

31-CR-COHN; Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwards' Fourth Amended Counterclaim; depositions of Scott W Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LW, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943. R. 809, citing pleadings in LM v. Jeffrey Eps

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

egedly misused. See Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19). 5 EFTA00799343 July 22, 2009 from Ed

]; 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

ly needed to keep the Ponzi Scheme from unraveling. [Cite Razorback and media reports]; Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court confirmed that there was no legitimate basis for filing Edwards' motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in

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