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

y Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 ( 1 1 th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a

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

any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a

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

668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accor

A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

e is no question that an individual is entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination during a civil proceeding. See, M·, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973) (explaining that the Fifth Amendment permits an individual "not to answer official questions put to him in any ... proceedin

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

d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accor

iami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

l, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United State

iami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). Thus, information is pr