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

tein. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter-claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation privilege app

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,

tioned action (the "Action") and submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Motion") with respect to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim (the "Counterclaim") of Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). 3. In the Counterclaim Edwards has asserted unsupported claims against me

1.440 Action #1 — Epstein v. Rothstein (Second Amended Complaint), 3. First, Epstein has a claim for Conspiracy to Commit Abuse of Process against Scott Rothstein. That claim is pled in the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on August 21, 2011. 4. Edwards, however, is not a party to that case as Epste

s involving different parties and different claims, and it is undisputable that Edwards' action against Epstein for Malicious Prosecution, to which Rothstein is not a party, is at issue. EFTA00808651 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Response in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Rem

th Amended Counterclaim) 7. The second action pending is a claim for Malicious Prosecution filed by Edwards against Epstein. That claim is pled in the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, filed on January 9, 2013, after Edwards was dismissed from Action #1. Rothstein is not a party to this separate action. 8. There is no question t

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. 9. Upon r

Process and Malicious Prosecution. 4. As more fully described below, at the time that I commenced the Action against Edwards and Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") in December 2009, I had a good faith basis for filing the same, based on the facts that existed at the time I filed suit, as set forth below and

tioned action (the "Action") and submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Motion") with respect to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim (the "Counterclaim") of Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). 3. In the Counterclaim Edwards has asserted unsupported claims against me

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. 9. Upon re

Process and Malicious Prosecution. 4. As more fully described below, at the time that I commenced the Action against Edwards and Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") in December 2009, I had a good faith basis for filing the same, based on the facts that existed at the time I filed suit, as set forth below and

tioned action (the "Action") and submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Motion") with respect to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim (the "Counterclaim") of Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). 3. In the Counterclaim Edwards has asserted unsupported claims against me

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. 2 E FTA_R

Process and Malicious Prosecution. 4. As more fully described below, at the time that I commenced the Action against Edwards and Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") in December 2009, I had a good faith 1 EFTA_R1_00008495 EFTA01733722 basis for filing the same, based on the facts that existed at the time I

tioned action (the "Action") and submit this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Motion") with respect to the Fourth Amended Counterclaim (the "Counterclaim") of Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). 3. In the Counterclaim Edwards has asserted unsupported claims against me

IFTEENTH 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, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

ise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

o the proceeding, are absolutely privileged. This absolute immunity afforded to Epstein pursuant to the litigation privilege appears on the face of the Fourth Amended Counterclaim as filed by Edwards. Further, during the hearing before this Court, Counter-Plaintiff Edwards candidly conceded that all of the allegations upon wh