Epstein Secrets

A. MARIE VILLAFAÑA Assistant United States Attorney [email protected] Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: 954-356-7255 Facsimile: 954-356-7230 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 16 of 17

itutionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[N]o ‘special circumstances’ existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence sugge

0018255 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: 954-356-7255 Facsimile: 954-

70)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[N]o

Avenue, Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 [email protected] Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradl

r cases as possible solely to impermissibly "inflame[] the jury or appeal [] improperly to the jury's emotions," or "solely to prove bad character." Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "[I]f the introduction of the evidence tends in act

mplaint demonstrates his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy .

instituting such an action. Id. at 910. "Probable cause in the context of a civil suit is measured by a lesser standard than in a criminal suit." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). 4 EFTA00808208 "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely l

kes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Mark Nurik Philip M. Burlington Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons/Suite 350 444 W. Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL

006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) 19, 20, 21 iii EFTA00589620 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter arises from the Appellant, Bradley

espectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney 500 East Browar ou evard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: 954-356-7255 Facsimile: 954-356-7230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed th

tionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel , 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Wright , 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[N]o `special circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence sug

est Palm Beach FL 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 3 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 33301-326

he Court can determine whether Plaintiff "had a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcatin

mplaint demonstrates his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy .

instituting such an action. Id. at 910. "Probable cause in the context of a civil suit is measured by a lesser standard than in a criminal suit." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily sati

Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ssistant United States Attorne 500 East Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: Facsimile: -16- EFTA00185221 Case 9:09-cv-80656-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 17 of 17 CERTIFICAT

stitutionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States' Kordel, 397 U.S. I, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm'nl. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[N]o 'special circumstances' existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence sug

mplaint demonstrates his reliance upon such a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness sufficient to demonstrate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy .

instituting such an action. Id. at 910. "Probable cause in the context of a civil suit is measured by a lesser standard than in a criminal suit." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily sati