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

ermore, as set forth in a Civil Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit ar attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A., deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions o

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In 5tanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct, at 1247, the Court stated:`(A)lso fundamental is

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

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)lso fundamental is

ential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He stated "I was convinced it was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN was hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake investments." Attorney Sakowitz was also quoted as saying ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesd

ey claim a lack of knowledge when: a. The firm had 24 hour security in the form of Broward County Sheriff's officers on each floor of the offices; b. ROTHSTEIN had 24 hour (firm paid) security at his home; c. Partners/attorneys/staff could not directly access ROTHSTEIN without going through extensive secur

ist, Dr. Leonard Bard in Massachusetts; when the alleged police report reflected that EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor in Palm Beach named Dr. Baird. Obviously, no records existed for this alleged sex therapist, Dr. Bard, and the alleged subpoena for records was just another mechanism to "pump"

ential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He stated "I was convinced it was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN was hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake investments." Attorney Sakowitz was also quoted as saying ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesd

problems with the firm existed when: a. RRA had 24 hour security in the form of Broward County Sheriffs officers on each floor of the law offices; b. ROTHSTEIN had 24 hour (firm paid) security at his home; c. Partners/attorneys/staff could not directly access ROTHSTEIN without going through extensive secur

ist, Dr. Leonard Bard in Massachusetts; when the alleged police report reflected that EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor in Palm Beach named Dr. Baird. Obviously, no records existed for this alleged sex therapist, Dr. Bard, and the alleged subpoena for records was just another mechanism to "pump"

UIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800X.XXXMB-AG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Epstein"), by and thro

The Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against the Defendants, Scott Rothstein, ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") and alleges: INTRODUCTION This litigation has at its core a law fi

eged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Baird in Massachusetts, when issues relating to Epstein's mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff (6) Directing and filing of Notices for the following health care professionals to produce medical records o

UIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800X.XXXMB-AG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Epstein"), by and thro

The Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against the Defendants, Scott Rothstein, ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") and alleges: INTRODUCTION This litigation has at its core a law fi

eged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Baird in Massachusetts, when issues relating to Epstein's mental and emotional states were not at issue and when Dr. Baird had never even treated the Plaintiff; (6) Directing and filing of Notices for the following health care professionals to produce medical records

Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10

te 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn.