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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A complete failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessaril

]; 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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders

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

support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Glasspoole v. Konover Constr. Corp. South, 787 So. 2d 937, 938 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A failure of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders