Epstein Secrets

Liability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property IS,agement, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott Rothstein; (B12) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; frW.i (313) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank erce; (814) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bov

thereafter through in or about November 2009, \ \\;\ in Broward County, in the Soutite \District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, /SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, 1,1eZNIK did knowingly conspi federate, and agree with persons known and unknown to the United States Atto mmit offenses against the United Sta

se of Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud and to 't re Fraud as set forth in Counts 3, 4, and 5 of the Information, the defendant, S . OTHSTEIN, shall forfeit to the United States, all property, real or personal, which eons! tes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense. 5. The

hat all deadlines in this Order arc satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 016 EFTA00795673 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

Y, FLORIDA CASE No. 09-059301 STUART A. ROSENFELDT, individually, and ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT, ADLER, P.A. a Florida corporation, Plaintiffs, -vs- SCOTT W. ROTHSTEIN, individually, Defendant. HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEFFREY STREITFELD Monday, November 23, 2009 2:06 p.m. - 2:43 p.m. 201 SE Sixth Street

uch time as 21 you'd like. 22 MR. STETTIN: Jurisdiction, in fact, is in 23 the bankruptcy court over the assets of the debtor. 2 4 That's the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler firm. 25 This Court's continuing jurisdiction will be, 4 .61111•••••• (561) 832-7500 2 (Pages 2 to 5) PROSE COURT REPOR

that order was entered prior to Mr. Stettin being appointed last week, so... 711E COURT: All right. MR. LICHTMAN: Your Honor, we repie:,ented to the Federal Court and the state court that of course we're preserving evidence. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? No. So w

OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and EL, individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION

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

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

OURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually, Defendant, AMENDED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MO

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

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

URT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFRE

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

vernment's response to the Doe petition, confirming her belief that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") should be declared illegal and that the Federal Court should "direct the Government to proceed to negotiate a new agreement — in a process that respects Petitioner's (and the other victims') rights."'

November 2009, the press reported that the law firm Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi scheme investors. The Razorback Complaint al

diation scheduled before you on October 11, 2013, and states: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2009, Epstein filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and

t the exact time, according to both Rothstein and the Federal government, that the Ponzi scheme was unraveling. Just days before the RRA implosion, the Federal Court rejected Edwards's bond motion, stating that it was "entirely devoid of evidence." Finally, while Epstein's suit was pending against Edwards, Scott

ability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; (Bt2) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; (BD) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank of Commerce; (BM) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova

and E., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OF ACTION Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and prof

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00729489 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

ited Liability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, aDelawarc Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank of Commerce; Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bova Ristorante

se 0:09-cr-60331-JIC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2009 Page 26 of 36 (BA9) Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. account 6860291266 in the name of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. which, on or about November 11, 2009, contained the approximate amount of $54,021.27; (BA10)Toronto Dominion Bank, N.A. acc

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00193900 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

ability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; (BI2) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; (313) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank of Commerce; (B14) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bov

ive billion-dollar conspiracy created and run by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothstein, his partner Brad Edwards, and others with tortuous and fraudulent abuses of process that resulted in serious injury to Mr. Epstein. A copy of the

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00223353 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may bo enforced in either venue; and 29

xes that related to, quote, 14 Epstein-related matters. 15 There are a number of issues. Apparently, 16 the Epstein cases were showcased by Mr. Rothstein, 17 and whomever else, who we don't know at this point 18 in time, to either sell the case, sell a potential 19 case, sell a structured settlem

ITTON: Judge, I think, from a 20 practical standpoint, with regard to the 21 preservation of evidence, the Federal Court order 22 takes care of the Federal Court did not deal 23 with Mr. Edwards at all; although, he was agreeable 24 to entering into a preservation order, because they 25 said it appears t