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

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

A is currently a debtor in bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Defendant). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The United States in United States of America I Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.

icle or other commodity. THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSPIRATORS 7. The roles of the conspirators were as follows: A. Defendant scorr W. ROTHSTEIN was a shareholder, Chairman and CEO of RRA. Through his position at RRA, defendant ROTHSTEIN promoted, managed, and supervised the administration o

hn, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Scott.W. Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairman of RRA. Within the information which was filed, the United States of America has identified the ent

TEIN, EDWARDS and L.M. possessed ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process. 72. As a result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s actions, EPSTEIN suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all th

(RRA is currently a debtor in bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Defendant). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The United States in United States of America'. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.

d L.M., 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

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Ha. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to t

ability Company, by its manager, Bahia Property Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, by its co-manager, Scott W. Rothstein; (312) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask; (B13) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Broward Bank of Commerce; (1314) Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in Bo

d L.M., 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

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

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

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and ■.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to th

1CR-Cohn, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Scott W. Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairman of RRA. Within the information which was filed, the United States of America has identified the ent

cordingly, EPSTEIN states: Defendants. COMPLAINT 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

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and ■.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to th