Epstein Secrets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. The two applicable parties being dealt with -- have a seat, please. Thank you. -- being Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, and the counterclaim brough

Mr. Edwards. THE COURT: Did he bring it against Rothstein's firm? I only have Rothstein individually -- MR. SCAROLA: Rothstein, individually and Bradley Edwards, individually. MR. LINK: My apologies. THE COURT: That statement is retracked. It's Rothstein individually and Edwards, individually. Mr. Scarola

file claims that were false. We are not taking about malice yet. Independent of any evidence that relates to malice, we get to prove the truth of Brad Edwards' underlying claims on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. So that then brings us -- THE COURT: I think I have already essentially ruled on that from

oof with regard to every element. It is also our position that the issue as to whether the underlying claim was bona fiably terminated in favor of Bradley Edwards is an issue of law for the Court. There are no disputed -- Mr. Edwards is present, yes. There are no disputed issues of fact with regard to what

through these and -- let me zoom in. On this top line are all of those circumstances subsequent to 4/9/09 when Bradley Edwards became a member of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, which counsel says gave raise to a reasonable suspicion that Bradley Edwards was a knowing participant in the Ponzi scheme and was using fabrica

h a claim of privilege was asserted by or on behalf of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler PA; Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.; or Bradley J. Edwards. MR. LINK: I think -- which subpoena duces tecum are you looking at, Jack? Which DRAFT !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00804218 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EFTA00804212 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 firm was retained, voluntarily by Mr. Edwards and his law firm, so that there had been in the record alleged privileged emails for years in this case, and you have not asked specific questions

EFTA00804202 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you have any communication with Bradley Edwards regarding the content of those documents? A I don't recall. Q Since receiving those documents, did you have any communication with Bradley Edwar

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did it ever come to your attention that emails contained on the server of the law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler had been produced connection with the state court civil proceedings by the bankruptcy trustee to a special master that had been appointed for purp

30 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. NURIK One E. Broward Boulevard, Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTT1NGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301-3268 Attormeys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00808548

on and the procurement of minors to engage in prostitution and further agreed to be registered as a sex offender (App.13, p.133). Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") is a civil attorney who represented multiple victims of Epstein's serial abuse of children. Edwards filed three civil actions against Epstein in

derdale. FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTT1NGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, St

s ".." (App. 1). The gravamen of the Complaint was that after Edwards had filed those cases against Epstein, he had briefly joined the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. ("RRA"), which subsequently imploded after Rothstein was charged with (and later pled guilty to), operating a Ponzi scheme (App.1). Rothstein

nduct regarding investments in settlements/cases. Brad Edwards, Esq. of RRA asked to reschedule the pending compulsor

Plaintiffs, including LM and EW, also clients of Brad Edwards, Esq. Id. at 427; and e. School records and medi

3, 2009. Jane Doe is represented by the law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler ("RRA"), which as been in the news regarding alle

elated Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80 I I 9, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 7 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax:

80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. 7 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 [email protected] C

xhibit H), in which he granted a protective order regarding the depositions of Michael Fisten and Rick Fandrey, investigators previously employed by Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler ("RRA"). As the Court may recall, RRA represented Jane Doe prior to its implosion. 5 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 536 Entered on FLSD Doc

se Management Report and would state as follows: A. BRIEF FACTUAL STATEMENT The Plaintiff seeks damages against the Defendants, Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, based on an illegal Ponzi scheme in which the Defendants and others are alleged to have participated. The Plaintiff contends that the scheme involv

for a period of time first by Bradley J. Edwards, individually, and them by the now defunct Law Firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, ("RRA") when Edwards joined that firm. Some of these lawsuits were transferred to a newly formed firm of Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, LP ("Farme

ntiff. Those minor females were represented for a period of time first by Bradley J. Edwards, individually, and them by the now defunct Law Firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, ("RRA") when Edwards joined that firm. Some of these lawsuits were transferred to a newly formed firm of Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fisto

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Judge: CROW PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTI

thereof, Epstein states as follows: FACTS Epstein originally filed this action to recover damages from Defendant Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Edwards, based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners, engaged in se

ls, and other unknown partners, engaged in serious misconduct involving a widely publicized illegal pyramid scheme operated through their law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler. Rothstein himself admitted to, and was convicted for, this pyramid scheme, which featured civil cases against Epstein in which Edwards was lead co