Epstein Secrets

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Ord

Epstein filed his initial Complaint in this action against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and L.M.'- Epstein alleged the following counts against Rothstein: a. (1) Violation of § 772,101 — Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act b. (2) Violation of § 895.01 — Florida's RICO Act c. (3) Abuse

ari, this Court recognizes that compliance with the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 is so fundamental that it warrants mandamus relief. Id. at 421. The Second District also has recognized that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 is required, and has granted mandamus relief absent such compliance. See Gawker Media, L

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florid

Epstein filed his initial Complaint in this action against Scott Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and L.M.3 Epstein alleged the following counts against Rothstein: a. (1) Violation of § 772,101 — Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act b. (2) Violation of § 895.01 — Florida's RICO Act c. (3) Abuse

cognizes that compliance with the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 is so fundamental that it warrants mandamus relief. Id. at 421. 9 EFTA00793775 The Second District also has recognized that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 is required, and has granted mandamus relief absent such compliance. See Gawker Media, L

Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 4

strict Court of Appeals characterized as "a series of temporary injunctions without the necessary showing of entitlement to injunctive relief." Id. The Second District quashed the order granting the injunction and held that "[a]n injunction cannot be used to enforce money damages or prevent a party of disposing of

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

secution action brought by a physician against his patients and an expert after he successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District’s opinion in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the litigation (or judicial) privilege would no

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