Draft: efta02762273

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,¶

PART 5¶

v.¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually, and J. , individually,¶

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff.¶

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFF DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF II1S REVI EIN'S APPENDIX OF BUS MOTION IN LIMINE¶

Plaintifttounter-Defendant Jeffrey E in support of his revised Omnibus Motio : tein") files this Appendix of Documents¶

Co s¶

No.	Date	Document
1	1/5/11	Epstein's Motion to Amend Complaint (D.E. 195)
2	4/9/09	Plaintiff's Motion to Strike References to Non-Prosecution Agreement or, in the Alternative, to Lift Protective Order Barring Jane Doe's Attorneys from Revealing Provisions in the Agreement (D.E. 32); <i>Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM
3	4/17/09	Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (D.E. 38) <i>Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM
4	4/30/09	Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition Transcript Excerpts (pp. 148, 151-152); <i>E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; 15 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXX-MB

No.	Date	Document
5	6/19/09	Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Asserts, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 Million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment (D.E. 165); <i>Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-cv-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]
6	11/5/09	Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction, etc. (D.E. 400) <i>Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-cv-80119-MARRA/ [REDACTED]
7	7/22/09	Letters from [REDACTED] re depositions
8	7/27/09	Complaint (D.E. 1) <i>L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:08-cv-81092-KAM
9	N/A	Court Docket <i>L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:08-cv-81092-KAM
10	8/11/09 8/24/09	Re-Notices of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Donald Trump <i>Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 9:08-cv-80893-KAM
11	8/10/09	Plaintiff's Request for Entry Upon Land (D.E. 143) <i>E.W. v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; 15 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXX-MB
12	8/24/09	Epstein's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Depositions of Lawrence Visoski and David Hart Rogers (D.E. 159) <i>L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein</i> ; 15 th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2008-CA-028051-XXXX-MB
13	11/3/09	Article: <u>South Florida Sun-Sentinel</u> - <i>Scott Rothstein's investment deals seemed too good to be true</i>
14	11/6/09	Article: <u>New Times Broward-Palm Beach</u> - <i>Scott Rothstein: The Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton Ploy</i>
15	11/9/09	Verified Complaint for Forfeiture <i>In Rem</i> (D.E. 1) <i>United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein</i> (Forfeiture Action); S.D. Fla. Case No. 0:09-CV-61780-WJZ
16	11/12/09	Article: <u>South Florida Sun-Sentinel</u> - <i>FBI doubts Rothstein ran a Ponzi scheme alone</i>

No.	Date	Document
17	11/20/09	<b>Complaint (without exhibits)</b> (D.E. 3) <i>Razorback Funding, LLC v. Rothstein</i> 17th Jud. Cir. Case No. 062009CA062943AXXXCE
18	11/23/09	<b>Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture <i>In Rem</i></b> (D.E. 14) <i>United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein</i> (Forfeiture Action); S.D. Fla. Case No. 0:09-CV-61780-WJZ
19	11/23/09	<b>Article: <u>South Florida Sun-Sentinel – You're in a town full of thieves</u></b>
20	11/24/09	<b>Article: <u>The Miami Herald – Feds: Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme paid salaries at law firm</u></b>
21	11/25/09	<b>Amended Complaint (without exhibits)</b> (D.E. 12) <i>Razorback Funding, LLC v. Rothstein</i> 17th Jud. Cir. Case No. 062009CA062943AXXXCE
22	12/1/09	<b>Information</b> (D.E. 1) <i>United States v. Rothstein</i> ; S.D. Fla. Case No. 0:09-cr-60331-JIC
23	12/7/09	<b>Complaint (without exhibits)</b> (D.E. 5)
24	6/30/17	<b>Affidavit of Jeffrey Ep [REDACTED]</b> (D.E. 931)
25	11/10/17	<b>Bradley J. Edwards' Deposition Transcript Excerpts</b> (pp. 163-164, 166, 227-229, 259-260, 276-278, 321-322, 338-339)
26	3/23/10	<b>Bradley J. [REDACTED]' Deposition Transcript Excerpts</b> (pp. 112, 116-117, 123-125, 230-231)
27	10/10/13	<b>[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED]' Deposition Transcript Excerpts</b> (pp. 205)
28	7/26/09 8/13/09 10/23/09	<b>Email from Pricilla Nascimento to Scott Rothstein</b> <b>Email from [REDACTED] J. [REDACTED] to Priscilla Nascimento</b> <b>Email from Ken Jenne to Scott Rothstein</b>
29	6/14/12	<b>Scott Rothstein's Deposition Transcript Excerpts</b> (pp. 23-26, 52-53)

No.	Date	Document
30	12/12/11	Scott Rothstein's Deposition Transcript Excerpts (pp. 59-62);
31	12/21/11	Scott Rothstein's Deposition Transcript Excerpts (p. 2278)
		Razorback Funding. LLC v. Rothstein; 17th Jud. Cir. Case No.
32	3/17/10	Jeffrey Epstein's Deposition Transcript Excerpts (pp 1 14, 19-
		20, 23, 25-26, 28-34, 36-39, 48-55, 57, 59-60, 62-69, 6-80,
33	11/9/17	Amended Exhibit List (D.E. 10
34	11/15/17	Epstein's Objections to A e ed Exhibit List
35	11/9/17	Seventh Amended emental Witness List
36	1/25/12	Jeffrey Epstein's Depv n Transcript Excerpts (pp. 19-21)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on November 21, 2017, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1).¶

LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA
1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 727-3600; (561) 727-3601 [fax]¶

By: /s/ Scott J. Link
Scott J. Link (FBN 602991)
Kara Berard Rockenbach (FBN 44903)
Angela M. Many (FBN 26680)
Primary: Scott@linkrocklaw.com
Primary: Kara@linkrocklaw.com
Primary: Angela@linkrocklaw.com
Secondary: Tina@linkrocklaw.com
Secondary: Troy@linkrocklaw.com
Secondary: Tanya@linkrocklaw.com
Secondary: Eservice@linkrocklaw.com¶

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Jeffrey Epstein¶

SERVICE LIST¶

Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 <u>mep@searcylaw.com</u> <u>jsx@searcylaw.com</u> <u>scarolatcam@searcylaw.com</u> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> J. [REDACTED]	Nichole J. Segal Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons, Suite 350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 <u>njs@FLAppellateLaw.com</u> <u>kbt@FLAppellateLaw.com</u> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> J. [REDACTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<p><b>J. [REDACTED]</b> <b>Pottinger LLC</b> 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3268 <a href="mailto:brad@epllc.com">brad@epllc.com</a> <a href="mailto:staff.efile@pathtojustice.com">staff.efile@pathtojustice.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff</i> <b>J. [REDACTED]</b></p>	<p>Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik One E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 <a href="mailto:marc@nuriklaw.com">marc@nuriklaw.com</a> <i>Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein</i></p>
<p>Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 <a href="mailto:jgoldberger@agwpa.com">jgoldberger@agwpa.com</a> <a href="mailto:smahoney@agwpa.com">smahoney@agwpa.com</a> <i>Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant</i> <i>Jeffrey Epstein</i></p>

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

APP. 23¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶

Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201
CASE NO.¶

Plaintiff,¶

50 2009 CA 0 0 0 XXXXMB¶

SCOTT ROTHSTEIN Individually,
[REDACTED] J. [REDACTED], Individually, and
L.M., Individually,¶

Defendants.¶

COMPLAINT¶

COPY
RECEIVED FOR FILING
DEC 07 2009¶

United States Department of Justice
CLERK & COMPTROLLER
CIRCUIT CIVIL SERVICES¶

Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, Individually, [REDACTED] J. EDWARDS, Individually, and L.M., Individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states:¶

SUMMARY OF ACTION¶

Attorney Scott Rothstein aided by other lawyers and employees at the firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, and Adler, P.A. for personal greed and enrichment, in betrayal of the ethical, legal and fiduciary duties to their own clients and professional obligations to the administration of justice, deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved a staggering series of gravely serious obstructions of justice, actionable frauds, and the orchestration and conducting of egregious civil litigation abuses that resulted in profoundly serious injury to Jeffrey Epstein one of several targets of their misconduct¶

and others. Rothstein and fraud had no boundary; Rothstein and his coconspirators forged Federal court orders and opinions. Amongst the violations of law that are the subject of this lawsuit are the marketing of non-existent Epsteimpettlements end the sanctioning of a serios•of depositions-that were unrelated to any principled • litigation purpose but instead designed to discover extraneous private information about ..Epstein or his personal and business associates (including well-known public figures) in -Oder to defraud investors and support extortionate demands for payment from Epstein. The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and the pursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or -value of their clients' cases and, Instead, had as its improper purpose the furthering of Rothstein's misrepresentations and deceit to third party investors. As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legalfillngs. This lawsuit is filed and will 'be vigorously pursued against all those defendants. The Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to coinpr0mise the tore values of both state and federal Justice 'systems' in South Florida and to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients who were adversely affected by the misconduct that Is the subject of this Complaint.¶

ae,r_Plaintiff reserves the right to add.additIonal defendants co-conspirators as the and evidence is developed.¶

GENERAL ALLEGATONS¶

• 1. ThIS Is an action for damages In excess of $15,000.00, exclusive costs, interest, ❑nd attorneys' fees.

•¶

2. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN, Is an aduttand currently is residing and works in Palm Beach :County, Florida.

•¶

..• 1 Defendant, scan ROTHSTEIN ("ROTHSTEIN"), is an individual residing In Broward'COuntys Florida, and was licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. In •Novernber2000, 'ROTHSTEIN voluntarily relinquished pis lay/licenseIn the midst of the irriP101itirraf Rethateirt, keterifeldt and Adier;. PA. cRRA-). Ho was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2009:. DeCember 1, 2009, ROTHSTEIN was arrested and arreigned.in Federal Court in Broward County, Florida;¶

4. At alllimes relevant hereto, ROTHS l' I ic:Was, the managing partner and CEO of titr i

'5.• Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and Rosenfeldt, are and were the principal OVvnere of SqultVin RRA and-each co-founded ARA.¶

6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. ('_").• Is an individual residing In Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law to the State of Florida. At ail trees relevant hereto,• was an employee, agent, associate, partner, •sbarehtiltlerncd/or other representative of PRA.

7. ' eft, L.,M..fl.M.% is an-IndWidualresiding in Palm Beach County, Florida. mes relevant hereto, L.M. was represented by BRA, ROTHSTEIN and in a civil lawsuit against Epstein and was an essential participant In the scheme referenced infra by. among other things, substantially changing prior sworn testimony, so as to assist the Defendants In promoting their fraudulent scheme for the

t.¶

promise of a multl-million dollar recovery relative to the Civil Actions (defined' below) Involving Epstein, which was completely out of proportion to her alleged damages.¶

8. Non-party, RRA is a Florida Professional Service Corporation, with a .principal iitlaierits•of 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33401. in addition to its principal. office, RRA also maintained seven offices In Florida, New York, and Venezuela, and employed over 70 attorneys and 200stipffigA Staff. RRA also maintains an office; O1109 NE-2d Street, Hollendale Beach, Florida 33009-8515. RRA, through Its ,attorneys, including those named as Defendants heroin, conducted"busIness throughout Florida, and relevant to this action, conducted business and filed lawsuits on behalf of clients 'In Palm Beach County, Florida. (RRA is currently a debtor in • bankruptcy. RRA is not named anWefendant). "

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS¶

'9. Tho United Stettin Untied States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohri, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; has brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) against Scott W. • Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairman of 'RRA. Within the information which was filed, the United States of America has identified the enterprise • as being the law firm, RRA, through which Rothstein in conjunction with "his coconspirators" (not yet Identified by the USA) engaged in the pattern of racketeering through its base of operation at the offices of RRA from sometime in 2005 up through and continuing Into November of 2009. Through various criminal activities, including mall fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of America asserts that¶

•4¶

t• 1¶

Rothstein: and his co-conspirators unlawfully obtained approximately $1.2 billion from investors by fraud In connection with a Ponzi scheme. The USA further alleges that "Rothstein and co-conspirators initiated the criminal conduct alleged In the instant information in order to personally enrich themselves and to-supplement the Income and sustain the daily operation of RRA." In essence, in the absence of-Rothsteln and his coconspirators Conducting the Ponzi scheme, the daily° Ca i bon of RRA, which included payroll (Compensation to lawyers, staff, investigatonL e ), accounts payable including unlimited Improper, harassing and .potential illegal investigation on cases, including Epstein-related matters, would in all likelihood would not have been' sustainable. A copy of the information is attached as ExhIbict to ltils.action.¶

10. As more fully set forth herein, 1:tRA held • itself out as legitimately and properly .engaging In the practice of law. In reality, ROTHSTEIN' and others In RRA were -using RRA to•market Investrtilts, as describcd•below,.so as to bilk investors out of hundreds • of millions of clotks. ROTHSTEIN and others In RRA• devised an elaborate plan through which we Sold purported confidential aSsignmonts. of a structured pay-out • settiemet, 'supposedly reached on behalf of RRA for clients, in exchange for immediate payments to these clients ola discounted lump sum amount. Investors-were being promised In excess of a 30% return•on their Investment which was to be paid out to the Investors 'over time. While some of the cases rolled upon to Induce Investor funding were existing -filed bases, it is believed that the confidential, structured pay-out settlernents were all fabricated.

4¶

11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) press conferences end releases and the Information the massive Rani scheme and pattern of criminal activity meant to lure Investors began sometime In 2005 and contin .thIugh the fall of 2009, when the scheme was uncovered by some of the Irma 8 CI the FBI. As of November of 2009, civil lawsuits were and continue to be filehgainst various 'Defendants as•result of their massive fraudulent and crIngnal scheme.

12. This fraudulent and Illegal Investment scheme 'Salsa evidenced by the filing of Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For ErnaS ' &nay Transfer of Corporate Powers to Stuart i A. Rosenfoldt, Or, In The Alternative, Alte ative, For tho Appointment of A Custodian or Receiver by ROSENFELDT, and RRA, against ROTHSTEIN, IndivIdualiy, (Case No. 09 059301, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Complex Business. Div.Vitereinafter "RRA dissolution action, and. attached hereto as Exhibit 2). 7

13. Plaintiff ref lances the M dissolution action for the sole purpose that It acknowledges tha RA and ROTHSTEIN were in fact conducting an Illegal and. Improper Investment. or Ponzl scheme based on promises of financial returns from settlements or outcomes of supposed legal actions, including the actions brought against Plaintiff EPSTEIN. The RRA dissolution action alleges in part that — "ROTHSTEIN, the managing .partner and CEO of the firm (RRA), has, according to assertions of certain Investors, allegedly orchestrated a substantial misappropriation of funds from Investor trust accounts that made use of the law firm's name (RRA). The Investment business created and operated by ROTHSTEIN centered around the sale of

• r¶

pstifin w RRA,•at at.¶

Page 7¶

interests In structured settlements." See Preliriiinary Statement of RRA dissolution 'action, Eihibit 2 hereto.¶

14; in furtherance of the scheme. RittA's letterhead was• used in communications reea.tdingirweettnerit earrEirtirisittee itt .purpettetretniatUred. settlements.. • RRA's trust account was used to deposit.hundredir of millions of dollars or wire transfer of mor's from duped:Investorsand Other victims. RRA personally guaranteed payments.¶

15i flothsteln% scheme went so far as to manufacture false. and frauduleht Court opinbne/orders including forging, the signatures of U.S. District Judge, .Kenneth A. 'MarraandliateirculiC0UrtJUdge,-Sutan ft, Black, Circuit in otherceses, It.fi not yet known if :he forged similar deCtimente• In Espteln related matters. leg-Composite Exhibit 3 hereto:•.¶

16. The details of Wei fraudulent scheme are being revealed on a daily basis through various media rePorts.end court documents. The most recent estimate of the financial scope:oltheschernir Is.that•t'exceeds $1.2. -billion dollars.

17. Relevant to.this -station, EPSTEIN.is currently named as a defendantin three chili mittens alleging, inter Ulla, sexual: assault and battery•that were handled by RRA and Its attorneys including prior to its Implosion — one of which is filed• in federal court (Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 06-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla.)(Jano Doe is a named Defendant herein), and two of which have been filed In state court In the le Judicial •CircultiCour1, .PainBeach County, State of Florlda,.(1..M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; E.W. v. Epstein, Case:No. 602008CA026058)000(MB

.8¶

AM, (hereinafter colleCtively referred to as the 'Civil Actions," and 'L,NI is a named Defendant herein). The Civil Actions Were all filed In August and September of 2008.¶

.18. What Is clear is that a fraudulent and Improper investment or Ponzl scheme was Intact conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the. named Defendants, which 'scheme dIrectlyImpacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions.¶

• 19; Miami etttithey.and\devetoper, Akin Sakowitz, was quatitl in a November 2009 tartialeasisaying,thatkie had met with ROTHSTEIN As.a,potential•iiiv.estor in August of 2009,.'but bet:eine suspicious. He stated "I was convinced it was all a .Ponzi scheme and I notified the riBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN.was hiding behind a legitimate IOW firm to 'peddle fake Investments.' Attorney SakOwltz was also quoted .as saying had•Sbp.hitificated eavesdropping equIptnent and former law enforcement 0fficers whci would sift through a potential defendants' garbage looking for damaging evidence to:use.with ievestors"to show how potential defendants could be in estetice blackmailed into paying settlement that far exceeded the value of any legitimate darnage datal.¶

20. Ft Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple *Rothstein related Inveifori. Efelndicated in an article that RRA/Rothsteln had used the "Epstein Ploy .., Essehowplece astalL That's theway he ralsed.all the money. He would use...cases as bait for luring investors Into fictional cases. All the cases he allegedly structured were fictional. I don't believe there was a real one in there." In fact, on November 20, 2009, Valiant Scherer, on behalf of certain clients, filed a 147 page Complaint against .ROTHSTEIN; David Boden, Debra a Andrew Bamett, TD Bank, N.A.,

1¶

. • "¶

Spinota, Jennifer Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsky and Preve asserting various allegations that further prove the massive Ponzl scheme behind the RRA facade; and AS Of November 25, 2009, a 249 page Amended Complaint netting additional ..fyele'nciants was:11104¶

21, Inaddilleni• and Imervinformallon and* belief, fROT:HSTEIN;Davld Bodani Debbie \alleges,. Andrew Barnett, Michael Platen and Kenneth Jetiita•(all employees of RRA) • -through• broker's or middlemen would stage regular. meetings during which false staternents were made about the number of caseskilents that existed or RRA had against EPSTEIN and the value thereof. They would show end share actual case files from the EPSTEiN aetiona with hedge fund managers. ThUS, the attorneys and clients haVe Wi3iVed any attorney-ell product.privileges.that othetwite may have existed.¶

22. Because potential investors were given access to some of the actual Civil Action • Meg. Investor-third parties •may have. became aware of a name of an existing Plaintiff Who had filed anonymously against 'Epstein- and had opposed disclosure of her legal

23. In all other Instances, by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and claiming the need for anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated clients, they were able to effectively use initials, Jane Doe or other anonymous designations which was a key element in the frauduient scheme. Fictitious names could be .created to make the investors believe manyothor cases existed against Epstein.

Epstein v. RRA, et al.
Page 10¶

24. In each of RRA's Civil Actions, the Plaintiffs are or were represented by RRA and its attorneys, including ROTHSTEIN and [REDACTED].

25. In addition, investors were told that in addition to the Civil Actions another fifty (50) plus anonymous females were represented by RRA, with the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, and that RRA and its attorneys would sue Epstein unless he paid exorbitant-settlement amounts to protect his high-profile friends.

26. Upon information and belief, [REDACTED] knew or should have known that ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the massive Ponzi scheme and/or were selling an alleged interest or investment in the Civil Actions (and other claims) involving Epstein.

27. Further evidencing that [REDACTED] (and possibly other attorneys of RRA) knew or should have known and participated in the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme, a front-page Palm Beach Post article; dated November 24, 2009, reported on the recent filing of an amended forfeiture complaint by prosecutors against "dozens of ROTHSTEIN's real estate properties, foreign cars, restaurants and other assets - including $12 million in the lawyer's bank account in Morocco, along with millions more donated to political campaigns and charitable funds." The article further reported that -

Attorney Scott ROTHSTEIN tapped into millions of dollars from his massive investment scam to cover payroll costs at his expanding Fort Lauderdale law firm, federal authorities said in court records released Monday.¶

ROTHSTEIN's law firm (RRA) generated revenue of $8 million in one recent year, yet his 70-lawyer law firm had a payroll of $18 million,¶

prosecutors said. ROTHSTEIN, who owned half of RRA used investors' money from his Ponzi scheme to make up the shortfall, they said.¶

Subsequent articles and court filings have reflected ROTHSTEIN received compensation in excess of $35.7 million in 2008 and $10.5 million in 2009, while his partner Rosenfeldt received greater than $6 million in 2008.¶

28. ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure the entity known as D3 Capital Club, LLC, ("D3"), by offering D3 "the opportunity" to invest in a pre-suit $30,000,000.00 court settlement against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never existed and was entirely fabricated. To augment his concected story, ROTHSTEIN, upon information and belief, invited D3 to his office to view thirteen (13) banker's boxes of case files in Jane Doe (one of the Civil Actions)¹ in an attempt to substantiate that the claims against EPSTEIN were legitimate and that the evidence obtained against him by RRA, ROTHSTEIN, and EDWARDS (the "Litigation Team") was real.

29. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others offered other investors like the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities in the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN (a former Dade County police officer with a questionable police record and RRA investigator) and Jenne (a former attorney, Broward County Sheriff and felon) assisted ROTHSTEIN in making these offers by providing confidential, privileged and work-product information to prospective third-party investors.

¹ It appears that 13 out of the 40 boxes selected by the FBI as part of its investigation at RRA consisted of files relating to the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN, as reported by courtsel for the Bankruptcy Trustee. Until those boxes can be reviewed, as well as other discovery, Epstein will not know the depth of the fraud and those involved.¶

• • •¶

l¶

90. By using the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN as 'bait' and fabricating sottlements :regarding same, ROTHSTEIN and others wore able to lure invest ' Into RQT146IttifS lair and bilked them of millions of dollars which, in turn, was used, fund rigairatilEPSTEIN for the sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme.

91. As part of this scheme, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team, individually and in a concerted effort, may have unethically and Illegally:

• a. .Sold, allowed to be sold and/ort tedwith the sale of an Interest In nonsettled personal injury laws (which are non-assignable and nontransferable) or sold non-existent structured settlements (including those ' cases involving Epstein);
• b. Reached akrellNents to share attorneys foes with non-lawyers;
• C. Used investorrponey to pay plaintiffs (i.e., L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up front" money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the Civil Actions; nducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conversations in violation of state or federal laws and Bar rules; and Utilized the judicial process including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery, for the sole purpose of furthering. the Pond scheme,

32. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Toamrdlrectiy or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules,

Epstein v. RRA, et al.
Page 13¶

including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules.¶

33. Evidencing that the Litigation Team knew or should have known of the improper purpose that ROTHSTEIN was pursuing in the continuation of the scheme, ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPSTEIN cases to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the claims pled in the Civil Actions, but significantly beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators.

34. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others claimed their investigators discovered that there were high-profile individuals onboard Epstein's private jet where sexual assaults took place and showed D3 (and possibly others) copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries, and international figures.

35. For instance, the Litigation Team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights EPSTEIN took with these famous individuals knowing full well that no underage women were onboard and no illicit activities took place. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team also inappropriately attempted to take the depositions of these celebrities in a calculated effort to bolster the marketing scam that was taking place.

36. One of Plaintiffs' counsel, [REDACTED], deposed three of EPSTEIN'S pilots, and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot (currently serving in Iraq). The pilots were deposed by [REDACTED] for over twelve (12) hours, and [REDACTED] never asked one question relating to or about E.W., L.M., and Jane Doe (RRA clients) as it related to

•¶

•¶

t¶

transportation on flights of RRA clients on arty of EPSTEINTS:planes.. But EDWARDS asked many inflammatory and leading Irrelevant 'questions about tho pilots' thoughts and beliefs (Which will never be admissible at trial) which could only have been asked for the purposes of spUrnpIng• the eases and thus by using the. depoSigenslo sell the caSeis: (ora:part of them) to thIrd.panies.¶

• C_ 37. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed" that Epttell•wanted to. make certain none of these individuals would be deposed and therefore he tad offered $200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRAfemale dente various potential plaintiffs in .actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a $200 million dollar settlement by EPSTEIN was coMpletely fabricated; no such offer had overbear made.¶

• 38. office also notified Defendant that he Intended to take the • depositions brand was subpoenaing:¶

• (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); 09.Alan Dershowiti (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); I')Bititlintorr(Former"Preslaent of the United States); (iv)Tommy Mottola (former Presidentaf Sonyftecord); and
• (v) David Copperfield (illusionist).

The above-named individuals were friends and acquaintances of EPSTEIN with whom he knew through business or philanthropic work over the years. None of the above-named individuals had any connection whatsoever with any of the Litigation • • Team's clients, E.W., L.M. or Jane Dee.¶

40. EDWAMIS IBS amended .answers to *InteringatOriOSM-the state court matters, E,W. and L.M.; and listed additionaltigh profile witnesses:that would allegedly be called at trial, Including; butnotilmited to:

(i). Bill (Governor of New Mexico, formerly U.S. Representative anciambassador to the United Nations); end (it): ny and all periOns havIng knowledge of EPSTEIN'S charitable, :political or other donations',2

¶

41; The sole purpose of the schedulIng.of these depositions or listing high profile .friends/acquelntandas as potential witnesses was, again, to -pump' the cases to investors. Them .11 no evidence to. date that any of these individuals had or have any knowledge- regarding .FiRA's civa Actions.¶

. .¶

42. In furtherance of their metal and fraudulent scherhe against EPSTEIN, ROTHSTEINLEDWARDS (whomither know or shouldhaVa known) and, at times, L.M. In her Clvilactionagalpst EPSTEIN:

• (sv a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal -action In
  • excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the Jurisdictionallimits..
    • b) Organized ii Janetioa TV media Interview without any legitimate legal purpose other than to 'pump" the federal case for potential

777¶

²These .high-profile celcbribif 'purported" witnesses have no personal knowledge regarding the facts on these 'Three Cases', but wore being contacted, subpoenaed or listed to harass end intimidate them and Epstein, and to add star" appeal to the marketing effort of the Ponzl scheme.¶

• investors or to prejudice -Epsteln's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County, '¶

• Berger and Adler (another named partner in BRA) an attended EPSTEIN% deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were asked of EPSTEIN *Web had no bearing on the case, but so that the-video and questions could be shown to investors. Cendueted and attempted to conduct completely irrelevant disdoyeryinireleted to iho cleans In or subject matter of the Civil Aetlons forthe purpose of-harassing and entbarrassing witnesses and EPSTEN and causing EPSTEIN to spend tens of thousands Af :dollars In unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs defending' what appeared to be discovery-related to the Civil Actions but was entirely telatedlo the furtherance of the PorS scheme.
• 4 Ater was recruited and joined RFtA•lh the spring of 2609, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases. Against -EPSTEIN used by Attorney and Berger changed dramatically In addressing the court on various motions from being substantive the facts pled to ridiculously Inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the "July 31, 2009, transcript- when stated to the Court in E.W./L.M.; *What the evidence Is really going to show Is that Mr. Epstein —At least dating back as

• •¶

far as our Investigation and resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of hls Efe, made an attempt to sexually. abuse children. We're not talking about fi & ivtiA not talking about-20, we're not talking about 100, are of talking about 400, Alch, I believe, Is' thefttUtzbermknown to laW enforcement, we are talking about sands of children: ...and it is through a very intricate at lcated system that he devised where he has as many eisiikpeople working underneath him that he is paying Weil to schadule.ffiese appointments, to locate those girls .°¶

• (d- . V
• f) As an tiea pVVARDS filed an unsupportable and legally deficloilotion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of fusses, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of lizoEpstein, and to Post .a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (I.e., to "pump" the cases for Investor following). However, the Court found Plaintiff's motion entirely devoid of evidence ... ", and denied the motion in tote.
  • g) ROTHSTEIN told investors he, had another 52 females that he represented, and that Epstein had offered $200 million to resolve,

but that he could settle,.confidently, these cases for $600 million, separate and apart from his legal foes.¶

• h) ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team knew or should have known that their three (3) filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following maser-is: C i .

(I) L.M. — testified she • had any type of sex with Epstein; worked at nu rous. strip clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girt; hes a history of illegardrug use (pot, painkillers, Xanax, Ecstasy); and .continually asserted the 5th Amendment during her depositions in order.to avoid answering <t) relevant but problem questions for her,¶

C) E.W. — testified she worked at eleven (11) separate strip clubs, including Cheetah which RRA represented and in which ROTHSTEIN may have owned an interest and E.W. also worked at Platinum Showgirls In Boynton Beach, which was the subject of a recent police raid where dancers wore allegedly selling proscription painkillers and drugs to customers and prostituting themselves.¶

(iii) Jane Doe (federal case) seeks $50 million from ' Epstein. She and her attorneys claim severe¶

emotional distress as a result of her having voluntarily gone to Epstein's home. She testified that there was never oral, atacir sexual Intercourse; nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet,.Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress well prior to meetin9asstein as a result of having, witnessed her father murder his girlfriend's son. She:was required to give sworn testimony In that mattr4has admitted that she has Iled In sworn testimony. Jane Doe worked at two different strip a clubs, including -Platinum Showgirls In Boynton acid.¶

• I) Conducted ridiculous and irrelevant discovery such as subpoenaing records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard 9ard in Massachusetts, when the alleged police report reflected that EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor In Palm Beach named Dr. Bard. No records relating to EPSTEIN existed for this alleged sex therapist, Or. Bard, and the alleged subpoena for records was Just another mechanism to 'pump" the cases for Investor appeal; Allowed a Second Amended Complaint to be flied on behalf of L.M. alleging that EPSTEIN forced the minor into "oral sex,' yet L.M, testified that she never engaged In oral, anal, or vaginal

•¶

• •. t• •t I¶

intercourse With EPSTEIN and she had never touched his •ganitaiia. ,¶

• k) Told investors, as reported In an Associated Press article, that celebrities end other famous people had flown On EPSTEIN'S Plano When assaults took place. Therefor's, even( though none (ten)) of RRA'a clients claim they fiew•.of EPSTEiN'S-planes, the litigation Team sought pilot and plane logs. Why? Again, to prime 'the Investment 'pump' with• new money without any relevance to the existing claims made by the RRA clients.
• 1. After EDWARDS Joined RRA, and former Circuit Judge William Berger filed and argued motion to make the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein- and USAOpiablic. -BK.RRA, and Berger, andtelr three clients, already had a copy of the NPA. They knew what it said and they knew the chill provisions in the agreement had no impact whatsoever on the three pending Civil Actions.

4¶

The concept behind certain civil provisions in the NPA was to allow an alleged victim to resolve a civil claim with 'Epstein, maintain her complete privacy and anonymity and move on with her life. As an assistant United States Attorney stated at a hearing in federal court, the NPA was not designed "to hand them a jackpot or a key to a bank?" •¶

43. ROTHSTEIN, with the intent and improper motive to magnify his financial gain so continue to fund the fraudulent and illegal investment and/or Ponzi scheme, had EDWARDS demand excessive money from EPSTEIN in the Civil Actions.

44. The actions described in paragraph 42 above herein had no legitimate purpose in pursuing the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, but rather were meant to further the fraudulent scheme and criminal activity of ROTHSTEIN so that he and others could fraudulently overvalue the settlement value of the existing and non-existent claims against EPSTEIN to potential investors.

45. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, RRA and its attorneys in the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN may have compromised their clients' interests. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team would have been unable to give unblased legal counsel because outside investor(s) had been promised a financial interest in the outcome of the actions. Additionally, if a plaintiff received payments from investment monies while her action is pending, this clearly could impact the plaintiff's decision of whether or not to settle the current litigation or shade their testimony (i.e. commit perjury) to gain the greatest return on the investment and to further promote the Ponzi Scheme.

46. The truthfulness of L.M.'s allegations and testimony in L.M.'s state civil action have been severely compromised by the need to seek a multi-million dollar payout to help maintain RRA's massive fraud. Because fictitious settlements of tens of millions of dollars in cases relating to EPSTEIN were represented to "investors" in this Ponzi scheme, RRA and the attorneys in the Civil Actions needed to create a fiction that

included extraordinary damages. However, the actual facts behind her action would never support such extraordinary damages. Therefore, extraordinary measures were undertaken to create an entirely inflated value of her claims against EPSTEIN,¶

• a. Though she held herself out as a °victim' of Epstein, she admitted to having returned over and over again to him despite her current claim of abuse. She has now admitted, under oatheto being a-call girliesccift since the age•of 15. (In her deposition September 24, 2009 Tianscript .Dr 280:16.19). She testified 'Well, I lived life as a prostitute; (see DT 156:7) and "I am a prostitute when I make money' (see DT 156:12-13). L.M. admitted her activity.with men other than Epstein to making $1,000 a day.fromprostitution on maybe more than 20 occasions in one year alone• (DT 157:11-158:21). L.M. admitted under oath to keeping a list of amounts she collected from 'Johns" kr stWo or threes lined books.including a book of• 'Psalms' that she obtained from a religious store (DT 152:1-14). Under the circumstances, her for damages against EPSTEiN, one of L.M.'s many "Johns" during that erne period, would be so incredible and certainly'not .likely to produce the W raotdinary settlements promised to "RRA's Investors."

Arma\47. in April 2007, before she was represented by, and RRA, L.M. gave Sem taped recorded testimony to the agents of the FBI. She was represented by a lawyer other then at that statement. She spoke of EPSTEIN.In a very positive and friendly terms and directly contradicted the central allegations on which L.M.'s civil action against Epstein is now based. However, once in the hands of¶

and RRA, L.M.'s story changed dramatically. All of a sudden she wanted to sua EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars.¶

a, 'For example, In her swam statement to the FBI, L.M. was insistent that "Jeffrey Is an awesome man' (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hoPe Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it really would be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an awes 0 'and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing," (pp. 57-58 - FBI). licOact, L.M. spoke so highly of EPSTEIN and her Interactions with film that the US Attorney's office informed a federal court in July 2008 that the • US Attorney could not consider L.M. a

¶

s<1 ' Yet, by September 24, 2009, the data on which L.M. began her deposition In her chill action and now represented by RRA and EDWARDS, L.M.'s new and very different tale about purported sexual misconduct under the supposed Influence of EPSTEIN had been thoroughly rehearsed and her role into the ROTHSTEIN scam was complete. In her deposition In her civil action, L.M. declared that:¶

"I, I don't really care about money." (DT 208:8)¶

"Ile needs time in Jail. He doesn't want to be.— this Is not right for him to be on the streets living daily.. ." (DT 219:21-23)¶

• •¶

"You• don't think my whole life -1 have lived that shitty life because of Jeffrey Epstein? (DT 222:7-8)¶

• b. In her sworn FBi testimony (pa and RRA). L.M. was emphatic that her Interactions with Epstein Involved no Inappropriate 46*al tbiicfiingih anyway: In fact, It was exacttythe opposite:

GI! Did he at any point kiss you, touch yet, show any kind of affection toviards you?¶

A: Never, never. (p. 21 — F¶

o; So ha never pulled ybu Cbser to hlin'in a sexual way?¶

A: I wish. NO, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome men, no. (p.21 -FBi) .¶

Yet, L.M. filed her second amended complaIntin April 2009, Sifter Joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN In 's complaint beCame.even more salacious. in paragraph 12 of LM.'s Second Amended Complaint, LM. alleges among other things, that¶

"Jeffrey Epstein coerced, Induced, or enticed . .the then minor. Plaintiff to commit various acts of sexual misconduct. These acts Included, but wore not limited to, fondling and inappropriate and Illegal sexual touching of the then minor Plaintiff, forcing or Inducing the then minor plaintiff into oral sex or other sexual misconduct..."¶

. %¶

I¶

• c. fiCher sworn FBI statement (pre- I and RRA), LM. testified that the individual who first brought LM. to EPSTEIN's home, told LM. 'Make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey dogma want any Underage (p. 8 - FBI).

O 'C¶

Yet at her September, 2009 depositio Dacdr represented by .•¶

EDWARDS and RRA,.L.M. told a very different story:¶

Q: My question was what did Carolyn tell you to tell Mr. Epstein about your age?¶

A: She said it didn't matter.¶

•Q: That's your recollection about what she said?¶

A: Yes, she Said — I remember her saying it doesn't matter. Den't worry about It.¶

(DT 19940-25)¶

• d. Pre:EDWARDS and RRA, L.M. testified to the FBI :1 always made had a fake ID, anyways saying that I was 18." (p...8 - FBI).

,A$ 'Yet, when questioned about her fake ID et her September 2009 depo, she stated:¶

0: .And did you havo.a fake ID?¶

A:No:¶

Q: Have you aver had a fake ID?¶