Epstein Secrets

ned herein including, but not limited to, the discovery abuses and bad faith litigation tactics that Epstein has been the subject of at the hands of Scott Rothstein and his-co-conspirators, any tax returns must be redacted to preserve confidently and to prevent further abuses. See supra. Further, Epstein's com

us civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein, including substantial attorneys' fees and costs. In short, Rothstein and his co-conspirators forged Federal court orders and opinions and, among other things, staged a series of depositions that were unrelated to any

n den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cl

deposition to begin on December 12, 2011, granting a stay to the government. Epstein sought leave of the Bankruptcy Court to take the deposition of Scott Rothstein on December 1, 2011. At that time, Judge Ray denied the Motion without prejudice, because there was no time in the schedule to depose Mr. Rothstein.

y Edwards. The Statement of Undisputed Facts is identical to the one used for Edwards' first Motion for Summary Judgment. EFTA00808026 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ to obtain summary judgment. Third, Edwards has

ot seek affirmative relief in a civil action and then invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving discovery in matters pertinent to the litigation.' DeLisi v. Bankers, Ins. Ca, 436 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (quoting City of St. Petersburg v. Haughton, 362 So. 2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (

OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMJ3AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually, Defendant(s). MOTION TO COMPEL OR ALTERNATIVELY TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM F

J3AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cl

ounsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

tion where a litigant or witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may incriminate him in a crime. See generally, DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litig

Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; William J. Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

nsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

BE NOTICED represented by Bradley James Edwards Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Blvd Suite 1

Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi I Bankers ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cla

CIRCUIT 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 L.M., individually, Defendant, / DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN

laint he carries forth the essence of all claims asserted in his original Complaint. In that pleading Epstein essentially alleges that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to “pump” the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. The purported “proof” of the allega

oid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a ‘sword and a shield.” DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Put another way, “[a] civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self-incriminat

Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR-COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit “SS.” 87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used t