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

hat occur subsequent to the arrest cannot remove the probable cause that existed at the time of the arrest.") (citations omitted) (emphasis added); McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that hindsight should not be used to determine whether a prior arrest or search was made with prob

]; 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

hat occur subsequent to the arrest cannot remove the probable cause that existed at the time of the arrest.") (citations omitted) (emphasis added); McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that hindsight should not be used to determine whether a prior arrest or search was made with proba

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

hat occur subsequent to the arrest cannot remove the probable cause that existed at the time of the arrest.") (citations omitted) (emphasis added); McCoy v. State, 565 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that hindsight should not be used to determine whether a prior arrest or search was made with proba