Epstein Secrets

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein. Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fi

ounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil of California v. John Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). Accordingly, Edwards fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFEN

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

any actions allegedly taken by Epstein. In fact, this litigation with Epstein catapulted Edwards from an unknown solo practitioner to a partner at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler. Moreover, Edwards still utilizes his litigious association with Mr. Epstein at his new firm Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fi

ounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not consistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable determination." Union Oil of California v. John Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 (3d DCA 1985). See also Rule 1.420 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (stating that "[u]nlcss otherwise stated

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

cause he knew he did not have probable cause or an evidentiary basis to support the allegations. See Cohen v. Corwin, 980 So. 2d 1153 at 1156 (citing Union Oil of California, Amsco Division v. Watson, 468 So. 2d 349 at 354 (stating that “where a dismissal is taken because of insufficiency of the evidence, the requirement

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