Epstein Secrets

nt with Epstein, as does his former partner Scott Rothstein, who’s now in prison for his role in a Ponzi sche

o’s a serial liar. Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers bringing this suit, has a history of legal entanglement with Epstein, as does his former partner Scott Rothstein, who’s now in prison for his role in a Ponzi scheme. But the other lawyer in this case, Paul Cassell, is a former federal judge and a law professor.

associate Jean-Luc Brunel. He employed scouts in South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union to find him models to bring to the United States, Vasquez said in a 2010 sworn court deposition obtained by the Herald. Vasquez stated in the deposition that from 2003 to 2006 she handled all the finances a

ported, to a degree, by the sworn statement of a Miami woman named Maritza Vasquez, who was later interviewed in New York by an FBI agent from Miami. Vasquez worked as a bookkeeper for Mc2, owned by Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel. He employed scouts in South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union t

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

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. A party may not trample upon the rights

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

bid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200. 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). 21 DWI 15&45345v3 3070112-000042 EFTA00596475 In sum, Edwards has simply "failed to

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- 00HN (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2010) attached hereto as Exhibit "SS." 87. It has been alleged that among other cases that Rothstein used

d on FI_SD Docket 01/1/2.215 Page 35 of Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 1603b§ Filed 04/u44/11 Page 34 Ot 3V have run a giant Pont 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

actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 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. A party may not trample upon the rights

Rothstein falsely informed the investors that the potential settlement agreements were available for purchase. Plea Agreement at 2, United States I 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

00188897 Case 9:08-cv-80C6st gsi-1346tuRrgwit 2en ofatergieocroF40 c. osa l'e)W 0,15 Page 35 of have run a giant Ponzi scheme at his law finn of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler P.A. ("RRA"). This Ponzi scheme involved Rothstein falsely informing investors that settlement agreements had been reached wi

il actions when they refuse to testify in response to mobative evidence offered against them." Baxter Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez'. Slate, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights o

CIRCUIT COURT 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 L.M., individually, Defendant, / DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAIN

laint he carries forth the essence of all claims asserted in his original Complaint. In that pleading Epstein essentially alleges that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to “pump” the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. The purported “proof” of the allega

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. at 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of

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 t

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.:50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Defendant Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., offers the foll

l 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. A party may not trample upon the rights o

Scott Rothstein appears to have mun 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 with putative defendants based upon claims of sexual harassment and/or wititl

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 t

ngeful assault by Epstein continues. Epstein's action against Edwards essentially alleged that Epstein was damaged by Edwards, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein alleged that Edwards joined R

n (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm ("RRA") where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein alleged that Edwards joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to "pump" the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor v

l 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. A party may not trample upon the rights o