Epstein Secrets

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

onzi scheme run by Scott 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 clien

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

he pending discovery motion. The facts underlying that action are briefly as follows: Scott Rothstein was the managing partner and CEO of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler ('RRA"), a 70-lawyer firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Balin Aft Ex. A, Ex. 1 ("Rothstein Information") ¶¶ 1-2; id., Ex. 2 (Amended Compl

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

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 with putative

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

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 with putative