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

. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 6

]; 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

S. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, M., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 604

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

S. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp. v. Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., 613 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied); see also Rivernider v. Meyer, 174 So. 3d 602, 6