Epstein Secrets

years ago (for whatever expedient or economic reason) to voluntarily give away the allegedly attorney-client privileged and work product e-mails to Conrad Scherer in the Razorback litigation triggered section 90.507. After taking steps inconsistent with the maintenance of privileges in confidential information

jury from case-eviscerating e-mails would result in reversible error and lead to a second trial. Because these e-mails are case-ending or worse for Edwards, Edwards has attacked Epstein's counsel and derided the truth of these e-mails in an attempt to hide them from the light of the courtroom, but in the end, t

]; 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

rounds for suspicion, which were in abundance on the facts cited by Epstein. 20 EFTA00799358 For example, at the time Epstein filed suit against Edwards, Edwards neither disputed nor provided any explanation for filing a federal lawsuit against Epstein on behalf of one of the clients for whom Edwards had alr

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

grounds for suspicion, which were in abundance on the facts cited by Epstein. 24 EFTA00583975 For example, at the time Epstein filed suit against Edwards, Edwards neither disputed nor provided any explanation for filing the duplicative federal lawsuit against Epstein on behalf LM, of one of the clients for wh