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

486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth

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

, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fift

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA cas

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

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individu

in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA cas