Epstein Secrets

nt. The court rejected the Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." (R. 833-837). The Record Demonstrates Probable Cause for Epstein's Lawsuit In Goldstein v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious -15- EFTA0

nces to supporting documentation. (R. 808-818). Those facts, along with the references as footnotes, are recounted below. Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009.' During that time, his firm was a front for the largest Ponzi scheme in Florida's history,2 and RRA,

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

connection whatsoever to any specific claims of misconduct against the plaintiffs in the Epstein Cases. See letter dated 6 Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009, which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the Epstein cases were

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

ims of RRA's fraudulent scheme described in the Razorback Complaint received $170,000,000 to settle their claims. [Cite] 6 Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009, which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the fraudulent pleading