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

relevant because the probable cause determination is controlled by the facts relied upon by Epstein at the time he filed his complaint. See Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ("A determination of whether probable cause exists is based on the facts known by the defendant in the m

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,

relevant because the probable cause determination is controlled by the facts relied upon by Epstein at the time he filed his complaint. See Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d at 1364 ("A determination of whether probable cause exists is based on the facts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution

TEENTH 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 RESPONSE IN

INTRODUCTION Edwards seeks to prevent Epstein from introducing any testimony and evidence regarding the criminal misconduct that occurred with the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler law firm ("RRA") during the six months that he was employed there, but that was not known to Epstein until after December 9, 20

n v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). A litigant may rely on first-hand knowledge or "trustworthy information that was provided" to him. Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Significantly, counsel for Epstein, Scott Link, at a recent hearing indicated that Edwards' burden wa

[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

. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily satisfied." Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364. Even in the criminal context, such as when analyzing probable cause to support a search warrant, probable cause can be in

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

. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily satisfied." Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364. Even in the criminal context, such as when analyzing probable cause to support a search warrant, probable cause can be in