Epstein Secrets

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

Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; (3) abuse of process; and (4) fraud. Epstein's complaint set forth details of a Pont scheme that Edwards, Rothstein, and others perpetrated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). (It 1-36).' The scheme included fraudulent promises

ons of dollars and fund the RRA Ponzi scheme." Edwards ' R. 809: citing deposition testimony of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; deposition of Scott W Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943. R. 809,

d." Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999). "This rule applies in cases of summary judgments as well." Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 1989); see also Rivernider, supra (holding that although trial judge erred in granting summary judgment based upon the

lEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTE

trial, the total amount paid, again, goes back to that place in time when Mr. Epstein would have brought this lawsuit at or near the time of Mr. Rothstein's arrest; at or near the time of federal and perhaps state agents raiding the offices of the firm; at or near the time of these cases reaching a c

, 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improperly becomes focus of trial); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 464 (Ha. 2d DCA 2001) (probative value of bicyclist's status as an illegal alien was outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the i

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

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

he onus of supplying the information or documents is inordinate." Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla.1999) (noting the lack of "affidavits, depositions or other sworn testimony in the record to support Allstate's

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

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

r the circuit courts not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal when issues are then pending before them." Id. at 983. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Titusville Total Health Care, 848 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("Courts have often held that it is appropriate for one court to stay an

, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE: DAVID CROW VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE AT TRIAL THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING IT

ounter-Defendant, JUDGE: DAVID CROW VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually

, 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improperly becomes focus of trial); Maldonado v. Allstate Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (probative value of bicyclist's status as an illegal alien was outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the

14 PM IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT DEPOSITI

F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individual

are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the case in which the discovery is sought. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). 10. "Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the element of

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

r the circuit courts not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal when issues are then pending before them." Id. at 983. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Titusville Total Health Care, 848 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("Courts have often held that it is appropriate for one court to stay an