Epstein Secrets

Rothstein. For example, Epstein alleges generally that "Edwards's... actions constitute a fraud upon Epstein as [Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler], [Scott] Rothstein and the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the best interests of their clients in mind at all times when in

the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein appears to allege that Edwards joined and Rothstein in fabricating sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor victims were t

he most persuasive character."' Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most

e v. Epstein, et al. Page 9 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

ed long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character."' Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action

tted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre AC14 I

zed long ago, "[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'" Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319 (1976) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-54 (1923)). This is plainly one of those situations. In a civil case, drawing an adverse inference is the proper action

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

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

d Facts as Exhibit UU) 23. Jeffrey Epstein also filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against me. His complaint alleged that I had been involved in Rothstcin’s scheme and had thereby violated various rules of professional responsibility. The Florida Bar investigated and dismissed the complaint. 24. I have

ngeful assault by Epstein continues. Epstein's action against Edwards essentially alleged that Epstein was damaged by Edwards, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein alleged that Edwards joined R

n (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein alleged that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor v

f the most persuasive character.'" Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1923) (Brandeis, J.). In the circumstances of this case, a reasonable finder of fact would have "evidence of the most