Epstein Secrets

ein v. Edwards. Case No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Ponzi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market inves

, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged

tion. 4. On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of

, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged

ein v. Edwards. Case No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Ponzi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market inves

tion. 4. On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of

ein v. Edwards. Case No. 502009 CA040800XXXXMB AG The Plaintiff Epstein commenced an action on December 7, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged illegal Ponzi scheme by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff believes others as well, to market inves

, 2009 seeking damages against Defendants, Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and LM,' based on an alleged

tion. 4. On August 26, 2010, counsel for the Plaintiff served notice of its intent to use the Correspondence in two court proceedings, an internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, and other, essentially public matters. It is also anticipated that the documents will be released to the media. A copy of the Notice of

"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available

ed the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, because Epstein is not a party to that suit, without moving for and obtaining leave to intervene, Epstein has no standing to raise objec

"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available

ed the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, because Epstein is not a party to that suit, without moving for and obtaining leave to intervene, Epstein has no standing to raise objec

n light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'

ed the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, because Epstein is not a party to that suit, without moving for and obtaining leave to intervene, Epstein has no standing to raise objec

n light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'

ed the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, because Epstein is not a party to that suit, without moving for and obtaining leave to intervene, Epstein has no standing to raise objec

"or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available

ed the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department Complaint procedure, because Epstein is not a party to that suit, without moving for and obtaining leave to intervene, Epstein has no standing to raise objec