Epstein Secrets

ed Edwards in a cause of action for abuse of process, arising out of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme perpetrated by attorneys and staff of the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler ("RRA"), where Edwards was a partner who prosecuted actions against Epstein which were marketed by RRA to investors with the

09, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon revie

neys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complain

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution ac

do that transaction on II against Brad Edward➢ accusing him of having been a II behalf of Jeffrey Epstein•a victims? 12 knowing participant in Scott Rothstein'➢ Rani 12 MR. LINK: Object to the form. 13 scheme -- 13 NITHESS: Nell, it was the right 14 MR. LINK: Object to the form. 14 thing to do.

e had reached the point where in 2008 you faced the economic reality of having to leave the bench. where did you than go? A I was hired by the Rothstein, Rosonfoldt a Adler firm. O How did that cone about? A As I said, I was interviewing with two firms. 10 There wore two largo firma that had

nd I think I met Spencer Kuvin. I just 7 believe the witness has finished his 7 can't place exactly where it wan. It wasn't at the 8 response. S Rothstein office. And I just don't -- it was somewhere 1 THE WITNESS: And wo keep talking about t in Went Palm Beach -- at a law firm in West Palm. 10 mo

So I served on the 12 Fourth District and served with a panel of judges 13 and heard quite a number of cafes and wrote several 14 decisions for the Fourth District. Q The jury may not be familiar with the 14 procedure, but when the appellate court reviews 17 decision➢ that are rendered and jury trial re➢ul

T COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME I DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, October 3r

4 25 of the primary element of the malicious prosecution claim, what may have been in the mindset of Mr. Epstein when he filed the claim against Rothstein, Edwards and LM -- initials being used only since she was allegedly a minor at the time that the suit was brought -- is of importance to the Court

his deposition testimony, his response to certain discovery requests, the undisputed facts available at the time he filed suit, the indictment of Scott Rothstein, every report in which it's discussed what Mr. Edwards and RRA were doing in these Epstein cases, as well as the filings in the federal court, and

cted the summary judgment on probable cause and bona fide termination. We filed an appeal. That case was briefed. And prior to the oral argument, the Fourth District rejected the Wolfe case. Now, what happened in the briefing in our case is our initial brief addressed solely litigation privilege, because that

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION

0400 Attorneys for Bradle J. Edwards By: /s/ Andrew A. Harris ANDREW A. HARRIS Florida Bar No. 10061 11 EFTA00597564 SERVICE LIST Epstein v. Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beac

y to make an informed decision of acceptance or rejection. One aspect of Swartsel was disagreed with by the Supreme Court in Nichols. In Swartsel, the Fourth District held parties were required to specify all terms of a settlement (882 So.2d at 453). Then in Nichols, the Supreme Court held parties could summarize

[PROVIDE CITATION FROM NYT ARTICLE, WSJ ARTICLE, SUN-SENTICAL ARTICLE AND EPSTEIN AFFIDAVIT]; Amended Complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in

and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. See Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. Scott Rothstein, Edwards's partner at RRA, admitted to and was convicted for th

t was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertained to his malicious prosecution action, during which time the Fourth District issued Fischer v. Debrincat, 169 So. 3d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), holding that the litigation privilege did not apply to a malicious prosecution act

. • . .1.. - . ! I bi . .. .c. 111 . Palm )jeach,PL 33401:(fax: 561-835.8691); and Bradley ,T• Edwitd;,• q. and WIlliatu J. • s. Berger Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt•Adler 401 East Las O. ;sit' 131i vl cit‘#41 1; )650, lion Lauderdale, • - • i• • ,,-. t . : • 1. • ., ' • ' 1 ' i• • - I . ! i

ld a stay not be 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad completely ignores the likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defe

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to