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

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SCIS-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. B

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

did there really is not more than dicta, because when appellate counsel for Epstein attempted to raise -- and he had to -- I mean the Fischer vs. Debrincat case -- THE COURT: Debrincat -- let's call it Fischer, F-I-S-C-H-E-R. MR. BREWER: Fischer had come down, and clearly the court was going to follow

T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant(s). MOTION TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL Bradley J. Edwards, by and t

MBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

, 2017: 1. On May 3, 2017, this Court issued an order directing the petitioner to show cause on or before May 18, 2017 why this Court's decision in Debrincat v. Fischer, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S141 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), is not controlling in this case and why the Court should not decline to exercise jurisdicti

EENTH 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 TO STRIKE

heme singled Mr. Edwards out from among all other innocent RRA employees. Those accusations were the only source falsely linking Bradley Edwards to Rothstein's criminal enterprise, and absent those allegations there is no basis to believe that Bradley Edwards' impeccable professional reputation would hav

tence in the state of Florida, the elements have not changed. Compare Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Watson, 109 So. 623, 626 (Fla. 1926) and Debrincat, supra. To prevail in a malicious prosecution action, a plaintiff must establish (I) an original civil proceeding; (2) present defendant was the le

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

e appellate issue pending in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court stayed those proceedings pending its disposition of the appeal in Debrincat regarding the conflicting opinions of the District Courts of Appeal as to the applicability of the Litigation Privilege to a Malicious Prosecution c

[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

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. Ba

L v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts 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(19); Depos

aim; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et at v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19). On December 1, 2009, the Federal Government filed a 36 page Information against Rothstein charging that RRA was a r

. Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Epstein filed for review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Debrincat v. Fischer, No. SC15-1477, 2017 WL 526508 (Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), holding that the litigation privilege does not bar a malicious prosecution action. Ba

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 this Court in the above case are hereby stayed pending disposition of Debrincat v. Fischer, Case No. SCI5-1477, which is pending in this Court." Debrincat is the lead case in which the Florida Supreme Court will decide the certified conflict issue. On or about March 8, 2016, Epstein filed a Motion to

0.00 Summary of Damages; work on Response to S. Rothstein's Motion to Dismiss; work on strategies 07/05/18

d in response Including an analysis of everything late filed and the changes (number of witnesses and exhibits) from each; check citing history of Debrincat v. Fischer; compare email exhibits used at B. Edwards' October 2013 deposition to charts to determine if any of the documents came from the attorn

2010, May 15, 2013, October 10, 13, and November 10, 2017, deposition transcripts and extrapolate testimony regarding communications/meetings with S. Rothstein to use to show B. Edwards may have been withholding information; review B. Edwards' filings and outlines for disclosure of number of pages produce

d in response including an analysis of everything late filed and the changes (number of witnesses and exhibits) from each; check citing history of Debrincat v. Fischer; compare email exhibits used at B. Edwards' October 2013 deposition to charts to determine if any of the documents came from the attorn