Epstein Secrets

ed Edwards in a cause of action for abuse of process, arising out of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme perpetrated by attorneys and staff of the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler ("RRA"), where Edwards was a partner who prosecuted actions against Epstein which were marketed by RRA to investors with the

09, 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) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon revie

neys 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) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complain

cause for a warrantless arrest is neither dispositive of, nor generally relevant to, this issue." Hawxhurst, 159 So. 3d at 1014. See also State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("The officers in this case had probable cause to search the occupants of the vehicle once they smelled the

[PROVIDE CITATION FROM NYT ARTICLE, WSJ ARTICLE, SUN-SENTICAL ARTICLE AND EPSTEIN AFFIDAVIT]; Amended Complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in

and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. See Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. Scott Rothstein, Edwards's partner at RRA, admitted to and was convicted for th

e cause for a warrantless arrest is neither dispositive of, nor generally relevant to, this issue." Hawxhurst, 159 So. 3d at 1014. See also State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("The officers in this case had probable cause to search the occupants of the vehicle once they smelled th

COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and III individually, Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN: December 17, 2

26f9-4cfa-bba3-4354ecd33a52 EFTA00598449 3 1 Thereupon, 2 the following proceedings began at 10:02 3 THE COURT: Okay. This is 4 Epstein vs. Rothstein. This is the motion of 5 the counterplaintiff for -- to add punitive 6 damages. I reviewed the materials you guys had 7 sent to me. I got the m

8 irrefutable 9:2,4 15:9 issue 12:18 16:10 issues 8:20 16:22 18:8 J J 1:6 2:13 JACK 2:11,17 jail 9:3 January 20:14 Jeffrey 1:3 2:3 7:22 Jennings 13:16 jgoldberger@... 2:11 jsx@searcyla... 2:17 Judge 1:17 4:9 8:14 13:21 14:11 16:18 JUDICIAL 1:1 jury 6:16 K Ken 13:15 knew 13:5,6 know

L v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19); Depos

aim; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et at v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19). On December 1, 2009, the Federal Government filed a 36 page Information against Rothstein charging that RRA was a r

e cause for a warrantless arrest is neither dispositive of, nor generally relevant to, this issue." Hawxhurst, 159 So. 3d at 1014. See also State v. Jennings, 968 So. 2d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ("The officers in this case had probable cause to search the occupants of the vehicle once they smelled th

Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 4

ch should be resorted to only in rare occasions.” Jennings v. Family Management, 201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 200