Epstein Secrets

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,

n by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and ju

EENTH 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, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION

0400 Attorneys for Bradle J. Edwards By: /s/ Andrew A. Harris ANDREW A. HARRIS Florida Bar No. 10061 11 EFTA00597564 SERVICE LIST Epstein v. Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beac

differential. Under section 768.79, you offer an "amount," not a deal. You can't apply mathematics to "non-monetary offers." As a later panel of the Fifth District noted, "One might logically posit, in fact, that 'the only enforceable non-monetary condition allowable under the rule is one that does not go beyon

01 19 20 21 22 Jennifer DiLorenzo, court reporter 23 24 25 EFTA00776366 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 2 3 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 4 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER BY: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., 5 Mizner Park Office Tower Suite 675 6 225 NE Mizner Boulevard Boca Raton, FL 33432 7 8 RO

rest that both sides receive, as I mentioned earlier, a fair consideration of their case. I do temper my comments today with the understanding as the Fifth District in the Ballast case made clear, that discovery is far EFTA00776416 52 1 broader than admissibility. I'm not suggesting 2 at this juncture tha