Epstein Secrets

Robin T. Kempner RRA Staff Ronald Wise Forensics (Epstein Case) RRA Personnel RRA Russell Adler Attorney RRA Scott Goldstein Attorney RRA Scott Rothstein Attorney RRA Seth Lehrman Attorney RRA Shawn Gilbert Prior Legal Assistant to Brad Edwards Sid Garcia Counsel for other Epstein Victims Spenc

ttorney RRA Scott Goldstein Attorney RRA Scott Rothstein Attorney RRA Seth Lehrman Attorney RRA Shawn

IINK III SHAREHOLDERS . GOARO CERnro) ALSOADVITTED KENTUCKY MANE 3 IIARTIAND PassAcalusurs imosissnn *NEW HAMITSITRE 'NEW JERSEY • waonaA F WASHINGTON 0C PAALEGALS: MOAN AVM/AVEC% /OSSA& DEEP/ARO° RANDY IA DUFRESNE OAVOW. IHLWORE XI-14 C. HOPONS DEBORAH IA KI4APP want L LEONARD. JR ALLIES

oman Acting United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Miami, Florida 33132 Attention: Re: Subpocna to Brad Edwards, Esq., Law Finn of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler Dear Mr. Sloman: Assistant United States Attorney I received your request to issue the above-referenced subpoena related to Op

e Case No. noanna-r ri I Related Miscellaneous numbers: Defendant(s) in federal custody as of Defendant(s) in state custody as of Rule 20 from the District of Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. A

y of a claim for malicious prosecution in its own District and other Florida state and federal courts. See,

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

vies, photographed at the New | York Academy of Art’s Tribeca Ball, April 14, 2004 (Rob Rich / A framed photo of Florida governor Charlie Crist and Scott Rothstein in Rothstein's office in Fort Lauderdale, autographed by Charlie Crist: Scott-— You are amazing! Charlie Crist (Carline Jean © Sun Sentinel / ZUMA- P

at the New | York Academy of Art’s Tribeca Ball, April 14, 2004 (Rob Rich / A framed photo of Florida governor Charlie Crist and Scott Rothstein in Rothstein's office in Fort Lauderdale, autographed by Charlie Crist: Scott-— You are amazing! Charlie Crist (Carline Jean © Sun Sentinel / ZUMA- PRESS.com) Ep

ss. Defens: least two prosecutors. | rejected, these arguments. Despite the army of att the terms first presented meeting. On June 30, 2008 appeal to Washington D.C guilty in state court. He w: onment, register as a sexua restitution to the victims. Some may feel that the | tougher. Evidence that has encourage th

ial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia, and in the judgment of the officer or employee, that person is a putative victim of that offense. This formulation borrows from the CVRA’s coverage

ch Police Department: Police Case No. 05- 368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text a

ial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia, and in the judgment of the officer or employee, that person is a putative victim of that offense. This formulation borrows from the CVRA's

ach Police Department: Police Case No. 05-368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at hitp:-//goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text