Epstein Secrets

Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Scott W. Rothstein, No. 9-60331-CR- COHN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS." 87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used

in or about 2005, through in or about November 2009, Scott Rothstein appears to 32 EFTA00726030 have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been reached wi

does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in respqmLwprobative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A pa

Rothstein. For example, Epstein alleges generally that "Edwards's... actions constitute a fraud upon Epstein as [Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler], [Scott] Rothstein and the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the best interests of their clients in mind at all times when in

the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein appears to allege that Edwards joined and Rothstein in fabricating sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor victims were t

not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian

ifferent litigation in which he himself — not Jane Doc — is a party. Specifically, in January 2010 the managing partner of Edwards' former law firm, Scott Rothstein, pled guilty and was sentenced to 50 years in prison for a massive "Ponzi" scheme in which he defrauded investors of $1.2 billion by convincing the

brought a civil lawsuit against Edwards in Florida state court in which he alleges that Edwards was involved in, or knew or should have known about, Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, and pleads claims against Edwards for fraud and violation of Florida's racketeering statute as well as an abuse of process claim al

unds, 44.3d 324, 843 =2d 218 (1st Dep't 2007) 15 Associated Gen. Contractors of Conn., Inc. v. City of New Haven, 41 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1994) 13 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 21 Buttner v. Berg & Dorf, 138 ad 439, 525 MI.2d 858 (2d Dep't 1988) 19 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 23 Bro

"abuse of process" are based on the allegation that EDWARDS' discovery tactics, including the filing of RICO counts, were allegedly done to further Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme. To highlight the level of bad-faith to which EPSTEIN stoops to make this allegation that EDWARDS' filing of the RICO count was someho

ighlight the level of bad-faith to which EPSTEIN stoops to make this allegation that EDWARDS' filing of the RICO count was somehow in furtherance of Rothstein's schemes and not done for proper purposes, each of the original three complaints that included a RICO EFTA00294300 02/01/2012 10:15 FAX 56168458

plaintiff's answers can be used against him through adverse inferences. See, e.g , In re J.E.B., 971 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2007) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) ("[T]he Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civ I actions when they refuse to testify in res

tted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre AC14 I

e to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from exercise of the privilege does not implicate the policy considerations underlying the privilege." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.308, 335 (1976). An adverse inference is entirely justified in this case. Epstein has remained silent when asked such straightforward requ