Epstein Secrets

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

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SCIS-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. B

re setting hearing on our Objection to Duces Tecum; cull through bankruptcy filings to pull out pertinent documents to use at hearing re waiver / Conrad Scherer; review bankruptcy hearing transcripts; cull out and review docket for all Orders Setting Trial and prepare detailed timeline to use as demonstrat

d in response Including an analysis of everything late filed and the changes (number of witnesses and exhibits) from each; check citing history of Debrincat v. Fischer; compare email exhibits used at B. Edwards' October 2013 deposition to charts to determine if any of the documents came from the attorn

e re setting hearing on our Objection to Duces Tecum; cull through bankruptcy filings to pull out pertinent documents to use at hearing re waiver/ Conrad Scherer; review bankruptcy hearing transcripts; cull out and review docket for all Orders Setting Trial and prepare detailed timeline to use as demonstrat

d in response including an analysis of everything late filed and the changes (number of witnesses and exhibits) from each; check citing history of Debrincat v. Fischer; compare email exhibits used at B. Edwards' October 2013 deposition to charts to determine if any of the documents came from the attorn

]; 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

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. Ba

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

did there really is not more than dicta, because when appellate counsel for Epstein attempted to raise -- and he had to -- I mean the Fischer vs. Debrincat case -- THE COURT: Debrincat -- let's call it Fischer, F-I-S-C-H-E-R. MR. BREWER: Fischer had come down, and clearly the court was going to follow

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

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. Ba