Epstein Secrets

amount of the discount will represent the [] gross income on the transaction." 13 The Confidential Offering Memorandum acknowledges that Banyon and Levin purchase "non-tort labor and employment settlements from plaintiffs which are not identified but who are represented by Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler"

artnership with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BIF, at all times relevant hereto, was operated by its Managing Members Levin and Preve as a putative investment entity formed exclusively to purchase interests in Ponzi scheme settlements. 55. Defendant, BANYON USVI, LLC (h

back Funding, LLC, et at, v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at Complex Litigation Division - Case No.: 09-062943 (19) Third Amended Complaint wired into a Florida Bar trust account with strict instructions to only release the funds in that account to the specified investment £under. 278. At some point during the

imply put, Banyon and Rothstein needed Bekkedam and his cadre of wealthy investors to perpetuate the Ponzi and Bekkedam needed the capital infusion Levin provided; ii. Bekkedam betrayed numerous investors who entrusted him with their savings by recklessly feeding their funds into the largest Ponzi s

d by RRA or TD Bank. In fact, the fictitious $8,000,000.00 wire is powerful evidence of the frenzied push by the Principal Conspirators, along with Levin and Preve, to do and say whatever was needed to secure investor funding as the Ponzi scheme began to unravel. Indeed, in their feverish zeal to ind

n concocted a story about how Platinum's and Centurion's halt in funding caused a client settlement backlog and, as a result, he was facing imminent Florida Bar suspension and a total freeze on RRA's accounts. This was Rothstein cover story for why mounting scheduled settlement payments were not being made

ht now. 8 NR. UREMIA: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation

licious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state. 25

ceedings. Under Florida law, there is no immunity for acts undertaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine wheth

ar No. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Easier Drive West Palm B Telephone: Facsimile: and Christopher E. Knight Florida Bar. No. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Espirito Santo Plaza, 14th floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for

y to enforce its orders, to conduct its business in a proper manner, and to protect the court from acts obstructing the administration of justice." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Maves & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608-09 (Fla. 1994). Most recently, the Supreme Court i

ry of a video deposition to the media. See infra for argument on media not having a right to pretrial discovery. 13. Rule 4-3.6, Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, states, in pertinent part: (a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonab

attorneys by listing the attorneys as witnesses in a separate case in order to prevent them from serving as attorneys in that case. Id. at 607. The Levin court held the attorneys' conduct was shielded against the plaintiff's suit by Florida's litigation privilege. Id. Thirteen years after Levitt, th

PHERD, C.J., specially concurring. The only remarkable thing about this case is its existence. As the managing attorney of the Miami office of The Florida Bar explained to Mr. Wolfe (himself a licensed Florida attorney), when he refused to accept staff counsel's initial rejection of his Bar complaint agai

nd related to the proceedings, the litigation privilege applied to both the abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.

ons of dollars and to fund the RRA Pont Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t

is a 9 litigation privilege argument that your Honor 10 has heard repeatedly from opposing counsel. It 11 is based upon the Court's decision in Levin, 12 Middlebrooks which describes a broad litigation 13 privilege, applicable in the context of 14 legitimate claims. 15 The attempt to apply

ds had subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell, that 21 she was a good person that did nothing wrong. 22 And Jeffrey Epstein filed a complaint with the 23 Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards raising 24 allegations that Edwards was directly involved 25 in the Rothstein wrongdoing, the same ibIA"ktiafifirr--- e8

until right now. MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege wh

licious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state. 25

wn District and other Florida state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution cont

nformed about subsequent developments in Rothstein’s prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit | 92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a-complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards, Esa, raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After investigating the