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

on; 5) malice; 6) damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action a

RT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, EDWARDS, L.M., E.W., Intervenors. ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762 APPENDIX TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PAGE 1. Non

40800 XXXXMB HONORABLE JUDGE DAVID F. CROW JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT RCTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and LM, Defendants. DEFENDANT SCOTT ROTHSTEIN'S MOTI Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN ("R undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R. Default entered against Defendant, and asserts as follows: ASIDE

o him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the trial and first addressing Plaintiff's case and damages against Rothstein and the related issue of wha

[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

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as

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

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as