Epstein Secrets

So I served on the 12 Fourth District and served with a panel of judges 13 and heard quite a number of cafes and wrote several 14 decisions for the Fourth District. Q The jury may not be familiar with the 14 procedure, but when the appellate court reviews 17 decision➢ that are rendered and jury trial re➢ul

Yeah. I heard of Bill Scharer. Bill Scherer 1 defendants? 4 is a prominent Fort Lauderdale attorney who wa➢ a 0 A Sure. 3 client. His firm Conrad Scherer -- yeah, I've 1 Q And before you would file that complaint, 10 practiced here since 1975. And I had a number of cases 10 you would make sure

hought were very, very high-caliber -- extremely high-caliber. I got to know more people there, of course. One of the clients of the firm was the Conrad Scherer firm. The Conrad Scherer firm was 20 ran by Bill Scherer. Bill Scherer la one of most 21 prominent lawyers in South Florida, certainly in 32 Se

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution ac

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

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act

]; 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

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

2 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this Ponzi scheme. On November 20, 2009, the law firm of Conrad Scherer initiated a lawsuit against Rothstein and others entitled Razorback Funding, again, a copy of which is provided to the Court and is relied upon as