Epstein Secrets

AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. cor.50.2929aufactigIVP111, CASE NO. • A Aq SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and .M., individually, Defendants. COMPL CO Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned

ant, ROTHSTEIN and Stuall osenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, EDWA

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

at ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the mass selling an alleged interest or investment in the Ci • Epstein. 27. Further evidencing that EDWARDA possibly other attorneys of RRA) knew or should have known and participated in the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme, a front-page Palm Beac

hat all deadlines in this Order arc satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 016 EFTA00795673 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

spiracy created and run by Scott Rothstein has been exposed. On Monday, Mr. Epstein filed a state civil RICO lawsuit charging Rothstein, his partner Brad Edwards, and others with tortuous and fraudulent abuses of process that resulted in serious injury to Mr. Epstein. A copy of the Complaint is enclosed with

Rothstein crimes, is now demanding over $2 million in legal fees. As a lawsuit brought by some of the investors' claims, Rothstein and his partner Edwards used Jeffrey Epstein as bait. The litigation strategy, media pronouncements, and investigatory initiatives of Rothstein and Edwards were calculated

FLORIDA &WHEYSett* Plaintiff; v. Complex Litigation, Fla: k cht Pro. 1201 CASE NO. pn 50 2009CAO' -1Oe)"4B SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indliricluallYt BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, and L;,M;,. Individually, Defendants. COPY RECEIVED FOR FPLING DEC Ti itgag orfArt6N M. POCK COMPLAINT 0Ingfil% ciPMPTROIVIR

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied In a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00223353 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may bo enforced in either venue; and 29

d before you on October 11, 2013, and states: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2009, Epstein filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of

er 11, 2013, and states: I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2009, Epstein filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), based upon Epstein's well-founded belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown partners of theirs at

o do from an ethical standpoint. And then there were people who I would say would never do that. And then there are people in the middle. I believe Brad Edwards is probably in the middle. The standard for probable cause is whether the defendant "reasonably could have believed" that the person in the previou

t the exact time, according to both Rothstein and the Federal government, that the Ponzi scheme was unraveling. Just days before the RRA implosion, the Federal Court rejected Edwards's bond motion, stating that it was "entirely devoid of evidence." Finally, while Epstein's suit was pending against Edwards, Scott

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201 CASE NO. Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually, Defendants. 50 2009 CA 0 b 0 3 MOUE 4) COPY RECEIVED FOR HUNG DEC u ( 2008 sriesnoN Ii poCK COMPLAINT p

nt, ROTHSTEIN and Stuart Rosenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, EDWA

etoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing th

at all deadlines in this Order are satisfied in a timely fashion, subject to further order of this Court; Page 5 of 6 EFTA00729489 28. That both the Federal Court of the Southern District of Florida and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction over these matters and same may be enforced in either venue; and 29

-7266452b4e18-d64aff543d4b EFTA00723196 Page 2 Page 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On be of Mr. Edwards: 3 G. MICHAEL ICEENAN, ESQUIRE G. MICHAEL KEENAN, P.A. 4 1532 Old Okeechobee Road Suite 103 5 West Palm Beach, Rent 33401 561.6840601 6 7

lationships with the clients? o MR. EDWARDS: It was actually my thin, prior 9 to my becoming an employee of RRA. So it was the 0 law office and Brad Edwards that signed the clients 1 up, and the clients were referred by a Jacksonville :2 attorney, Jay Howell. .3 THE COURT: Okay. I don't want to get

ITTON: Judge, I think, from a 20 practical standpoint, with regard to the 21 preservation of evidence, the Federal Court order 22 takes care of the Federal Court did not deal 23 with Mr. Edwards at all; although, he was agreeable 24 to entering into a preservation order, because they 25 said it appears t

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and EL, individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR

tates as follows: Summary In 2009, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed suit against attorney Bradley J. Edwards, alleging that Mr. Edwards had fabricated certain civil claims arising from Epstein's systematic sexual abuse of minor female children as part of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme th

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually, Defendant, AMENDED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING SCHEDULED

states as follows: Summary In 2009, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein filed suit against attorney Bradley J. Edwards, alleging that Mr. Edwards had fabricated certain civil claims arising from Epstein's systematic sexual abuse of minor female children as part of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme th

tes case in paragraph 29(4) of his Amended Complaint filed on April 12, 2011, wherein he acknowledged that one of the potential outcomes of Doe was the Federal Court "invalidating the [Non-Prosecution] Agreement." In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mr. Edwards only days before a scheduled

IRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ST

eme. Substantial discovery was taken by both parties. In 2012, Epstein voluntarily dismissed his complaint, and the sole remaining claim became Mr. Edwards' counterclaim for malicious prosecution. For the next five years, the parties litigated Mr. Edwards' claims in both the trial and appellate courts a

vernment's response to the Doe petition, confirming her belief that Epstein's non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") should be declared illegal and that the Federal Court should "direct the Government to proceed to negotiate a new agreement — in a process that respects Petitioner's (and the other victims') rights."'

bought a two-story house in Croften, Maryland, a residential community very close to the NSA’s headquarters building at Fort Meade. The two children, Edward, who was nine, and Jessica, who was 12, were enrolled in local public schools in Croften. Jessica was a top student. She graduated high school, comp

amily was employed by the Federal government. His father Lon in 2006 was serving in the Coastguard; his mother Wendy was the administrative clerk for the Federal Court in Maryland; his sister Jessica was a research director at the Federal Judicial Center; and his namesake grandfather, Admiral Barrett, was still a to