Epstein Secrets

nt with Epstein, as does his former partner Scott Rothstein, who’s now in prison for his role in a Ponzi sche

o’s a serial liar. Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers bringing this suit, has a history of legal entanglement with Epstein, as does his former partner Scott Rothstein, who’s now in prison for his role in a Ponzi scheme. But the other lawyer in this case, Paul Cassell, is a former federal judge and a law professor.

he’d found one at last: Dick Snyder, then C.E.O. of the publisher Simon & Schuster, who wanted to put up approximately $500,000. (Neither Epstein nor Snyder can now recall the investment. Yet in the 1989 deposition Epstein said that he had recruited Snyder, whom he had met socially, into the deal.) Accor

t up approximately $500,000. (Neither Epstein nor Snyder can now recall the investment. Yet in the 1989 deposition Epstein said that he had recruited Snyder, whom he had met socially, into the deal.) According to a source, Toboroff and Nederlander told Epstein that Snyder was too late, but, without their

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

s reveal that there is no genuine issue of 4 EFTA00725972 material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Snyder v. Cheezem Development Corp., 373 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Rule 1.510(c), Fla. R. Civ. P. Once the moving party conclusively establishes

- 80811 [email protected] Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

not a mere privilege. This right is available at the taking of depositions as well as during the examination of witnesses at trial." See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333,334,419 A.2d 913 (1980). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 370 En

mail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

n of witnesses at trial." Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that Epstein be prevented from attending her deposition should be denied. See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404,408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333,334, 419 A.2d 913 (1980). If this Court excludes Defendant from deposit

n Related Case No. 08- 80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

Plaintiffs request that Epstein be prevented from attending her deposition and that a special master be appointed should be denied. See Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917); Helfferich v. Farley, 36 Conn.Sup. 333, 334, 419 A.2d 913 (1980). If this Court excludes Defendant from depo