EFTA00286283.pdf

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. 'ist1)00004B v. Plaintiff, 50 2009CAO it 0B SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, DLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and IV , individually, COPY RECEIVED FOR FILING Defendants. Bic A 12099 stinnoN fl,DOCK COMPLAINT WM4 OQMPTFIC2660 Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and 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 EFTA00286283 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 2 tein and his co- and others. Rothstein and RRA's fraud had no boundary; Roths ns. Amongst the violations of law conspirators forged Federal court orders and opinio non-existent Epstein settlements that are the subject of this lawsuit are the marketing of were unrelated to any principled and the sanctioning of a series of depositions that eous private information about litigation purpose but instead designed to discover extran well-known public figures) in Epstein or his personal and business associates (including nds for payment from Epstein. order to defraud investors and support extortionate dema and the pursuit of a civil litigation The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions clients' cases and, instead, strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value of their misrepresentations and deceit had as its improper purpose the furthering of Rothstein's to abusive investigatory tactics, to third party Investors. As a result, Epstein was subject . This lawsuit is filed and will unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal filings . The Rothstein racketeering be vigorously pursued against all these defendants state and federal justice enterprise endeavored to compromise the core values of both and honest lawyers and their systems in South Florida and to vindicate the hardworking that is the subject of this clients who were adversely affected by the misconduct Complaint. co-conspirators as the Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional defendants — facts and evidence is developed. GENERAL ALLEGATONS exclu sive costs, interest, 1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, and attorneys' fees. EFTA00286284 Epstein v. RRA, et at Page 3 2. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN, is an adult and currently is residing and works in Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN ("ROTHSTEIN"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida, and was licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. In November 2009, ROTHSTEIN voluntarily relinquished his law license in the midst of the implosion of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. ("RRA"). He was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court on November 20, 2009. On December 1, 2009, ROTHSTEIN was arrested and arraigned in Federal Court In Broward County, Florida. 4. At all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN was the managing partner and CEO of RRA. 5. Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and Stuart Rosenfeldt, are and were the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and Is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, EDWARDS was an employee, agent, associate, partner, shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA. 7. Defendant, IS (.."), is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, was represented by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and EDWARDS 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 EFTA00286285 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 4 Civil Actions (defined below) promise of a multi-million dollar recovery relative to the her alleged damages. involving Epstein, which was completely out of proportion to Corporation , with a principal 8. Non-party, RRA is a Florida Professional Service e, FL 33401. In addition address of 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdal Florida, New York, and to its principal office, RRA also maintained seven offices in RRA also maintains Venezuela, and employed over 70 attorneys and 200 support staff. a 33009-8515. RRA, through an office at 1109 NE 2d Street, Hallandale Beach, Florid n, conducted business its attorneys, including those named as Defendants herei ess and filed lawsuits on throughout Florida, and relevant to this action, conducted busin behalf of clients in Palm Beach County, Florida. (RRA is currently a debtor in bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Defendant). FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS W. Rothstein, Case No. 9. The United States in United States of America v. Scott District of Florida, has 09-60331CR-Cohn, United States District Court, Southern § 1962(d) against Scott W. brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. RRA. Within the Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairman of has identified the enterprise information which was filed, the United States of America conjunction with "his co- as being the law firm, RRA, through which Rothstein in pattern of racketeering conspirators" (not yet identified by the USA) engaged in the time in 2005 up through through its base of operation at the offices of RRA from some al activities, Including and continuing into November of 2009. Through various crimin ica asserts that mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of Amer EFTA00286286 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 5 ximately $1.2 billion from Rothstein and his co-conspirators unlawfully obtained appro The USA further alleges that investors by fraud in connection with a Ponzi scheme. ct alleged in the instant "Rothstein and co-conspirators initiated the criminal condu supplemen t the income and Information in order to personally enrich themselves and to ce of Rothstein and his co- sustain the daily operation of RRA." In essence, in the absen tion of RRA, which included conspirators conducting the Ponzi scheme, the daily opera accounts payable Including payroll (compensation to lawyers, staff, investigators, etc.), tigation on cases, including unlimited improper, harassing and potential illegal inves been sustainable. A copy Epstein-related matters, would in all likelihood would not have of the information is attached as Exhibit 1 to this action. as legitimately and properly 10. As more fully set forth herein, RRA held itself out and others in RRA were using engaging in the practice of law. In reality, ROTHSTEIN bilk investors out of hundreds RRA to market Investments, as described below, so as to devised an elaborate plan of millions of dollars. ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA ts of a structured pay-out through which were sold purported confidential assignmen for clients, in exchange for settlements, supposedly reached on behalf of RRA amount. Investors were immediate payments to these clients of a discounted lump sum t which was to be paid out being promised in excess of a 30% return on their Investmen upon to Induce investor to the investors over time. While some of the cases relied , structured pay-out funding were existing filed cases, It is believed that the confidential settlements were all fabricated. EFTA00286287 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 6 of Investigation (FBI) press 11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau Ponzi scheme and pattern of conferences and releases and the Information the massive 2005 and continued through criminal activity meant to lure investors began sometime in of the investors and the FBI. the fall of 2009, when the scheme was uncovered by some ue to be filed against various As of November of 2009, civil lawsuits were and contin al scheme. Defendants as result of their massive fraudulent and crimin evidenced by the filing of 12. This fraudulent and illegal investment scheme is also Transfer of Corporate Powers Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For Emergency Appointment of A Custodian or to Stuart A. Rosenfeldt, Or, In The Alternative, For the N, individually. (Case No. 09 Receiver by ROSENFELDT, and RRA, against ROTHSTEI ial Circuit, Broward County, 059301, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judic lution action, and attached Florida, Complex Business Div.), (hereinafter "RRA disso hereto as Exhibit 2). sole purpose that it 13. Plaintiff references the RRA dissolution action for the conducting an illegal and acknowledges that RRA and ROTHSTEIN were in fact of financial retums from improper investment or Ponzi scheme based on promises ing the actions brought settlements or outcomes of supposed legal actions, Includ against Plaintiff EPSTEIN. The RRA dissolution action alleges in part that — (RRA), has, according to "ROTHSTEIN, the managing partner and CEO of the firm antial misappropriation of assertions of certain investors, allegedly orchestrated a subst firm's name (RRA). The funds from investor trust accounts that made use of the law N centered around the sale of investment business created and operated by ROTHSTEI EFTA00286288 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 7 Statement of RRA dissolution interests in structured settlements? See Preliminary action, Exhibit 2 hereto. was used in communications 14. In furtherance of the scheme, RRA's letterhead ured settlements. RBA's trust regarding investment opportunities in purported struct dollars or wire transfer of monies account was used to deposit hundreds of millions of guaranteed payments. from duped investors and other victims. RRA personally e false and fraudulent Court 15. Rothstein's scheme went so far as to manufactur District Judge, Kenneth A. opinions/orders including forging the signatures of U.S. Circuit in other cases. It is not Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Black, 11th ln related matters. See Composite yet known if he forged similar documents in Espte Exhibit 3 hereto. revealed on a daily basis through 16. The details of this fraudulent scheme are being recent estimate of the financial various media reports and court documents. The most scope of the scheme is that it exceeds $1.2 billion dollars. d as a defendant in three civil 17. Relevant to this action, EPSTEIN is currently name that were handled by RRA and its actions alleging, inter alia, sexual assault and battery of which is filed in federal attorneys including EDWARDS prior to its implosion — one U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla.)(Jane Doe is a court (Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893, filed in state court in the 151° named Defendant herein), and two of which have been a, al . v. Epstein, Case No. Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, State of Florid No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB 502008CA028051XXXXM6 AB; E.W. v. Epstein, Case EFTA00286289 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 8 Actions," and ■ is a named AB), (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Civil st and September of 2008. Defendant herein). The Civil Actions were all filed in Augu tment or Ponzi scheme was 18. What is clear is that a fraudulent and improper inves of the named Defendants, which in fact conducted and operated by RRA and certain dant in the Civil Actions. scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defen quoted in a November 2009 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was a potential investor in August of article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as nced it was all a Ponzi scheme 2009, but became suspicious. He stated "I was convi was hiding behind a legitimate and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN witz was also quoted as saying law firm to peddle fake investments? Attorney Sako and former law enforcement ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesdropping equipment ge looking for damaging officers who would sift through a potential defendants' garba dants could be in essence evidence to use with investors to show how potential defen the value of any legitimate blackmailed into paying settlement that far exceeded damage claim. le Rothstein related 20. Ft. Lauderdale attomey William Scherer represents multip used the "Epstein Ploy ... investors. He Indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had y. He would use. . .cases as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised all the mone cases he allegedly structured as bait for luring investors into fictional cases. All the In fact, on November 20, were fictional. I don't believe there was a real one in there." page Complaint against 2009, William Scherer, on behalf of certain clients, filed a 147 TD Bank, N.A., Frank ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Debra Villegas, Andrew Barnett, EFTA00286290 Epsteh v. RRA, et al. Page 9 and Frank Preve asser ting various Spinosa, IMMI Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsky scheme behind the RRA facade; and allegations that further prove the massive Ponzi ded Complaint naming additional as of November 25, 2009, a 249 page Amen Defendants was filed. STEIN, David Boden, Debbie 21. In addition, and upon information and belief, ROTH Jenne (all employees of RRA) Vilieges, Andrew Barnett, Michael Fisten and Kenneth ar meetings during which false through brokers or middlemen would stage regul /clients that existed or RRA had statements were made about the number of cases show and share actual case files against EPSTEIN and the value thereof. They would Thus, the attorneys and clients from the EPSTEIN actions with hedge fund managers. privileges that otherwise may have have waived any attorney-client or work- product existed. some of the actual Civil Action 22. Because potential investors were given access to of a name of an existing Plaintiff files, Investor-third parties may have became aware opposed disclosure of her legal who had filed anonymously against Epstein and had name. EDWARDS claiming the need 23. In all other instances, by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and s, they were able to effectively for anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated client was a key element in the use initials, Jane Doe or other anonymous designations which the inves tors believe fraudulent scheme. Fictitious names could be created to make many other cases existed against Epstein. EFTA00286291 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 10 were represented by RRA and 24. In each of RRA's Civil Actions, the Plaintiffs are or its attorneys, Including ROTHSTEIN and EDWARDS. Civil Actions another fifty 25. In addition, investors were told that in addition to the with the potential for hundreds (50) plus anonymous females were represented by RRA, its attorneys would sue Epstein of millions of dollars in settlements, and that RRA and ct his high-profile friends. unless he paid exorbitant-settlement amounts to prote 26. Upon information and belief, EDWARDS knew or should have known that ive Ponzi scheme and/or were ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the mass s (and other claims) involving selling an alleged interest or investment in the Civil Action Epstein. attorneys of RRA) knew 27. Further evidencing that EDWARDS (and possibly other uation of the massive Ponzi or should have known and participated in the contin mber 24, 2009, reported on scheme, a front-page Palm Beach Post article, dated Nove prosecutors against "dozens of the recent filing of an amended forfeiture complaint by urants and other assets — ROTHSTEIN's real estate properties, foreign cars, resta along with millions more including $12 million in the lawyer's bank account in Morocco, furthe r reported that — donated to political campaigns and charitable funds.' The article massive Attorney Scott ROTHSTEIN tapped into millions of dollars from his Lauderdale investment scam to cover payroll costs at his expanding Fort ay. law firm, federal authorities said In court records released Mond n in one ROTHSTEIN's law firm (RRA) generated revenue of $8 millio $18 million, recent year, yet his 70-lawyer law firm had a payroll of EFTA00286292 Epstein v. RRA, et at. Page 11 used investors' prosecutors said. ROTHSTEIN, who owned half of RRA said. money from his Ponzi scheme to make up the shortfall, they STEIN received Subsequent articles and court filings have reflected ROTH million in 2009, while compensation in excess of $35.7 million in 2008 and $10.5 . his partner Rosenfeldt received greater than $6 million in 2008 Capital Club, LLC, ("D3"), 28. ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure the entity known as D3 00,000.00 court settlement by offering D3 "the opportunity" to invest in a pre-suit $30,0 existed and was entirely against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never N, upon information and belief, fabricated. To augment his concocted story, ROTHSTEI of case files in Jane Doe invited D3 to his office to view thirteen (13) banker's boxes claims against EPSTEIN (one of the Civil Actions) in an attempt to substantiate that the by RRA, ROTHSTEIN, and were legitimate and that the evidence obtained against him EDWARDS (the "Litigation Team") was real. d other investors like 29. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others offere involving EPSTEIN. the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities in the Civil Actions le police record and RRA Fisten (a former Dade County police officer with a questionab Sheriff and felon) assisted investigator) and Jenne (a former attorney, Broward County , privileged and work- ROTHSTEIN in making these offers by providing confidential product information to prospective third-party investors. Its investigation at RRA It appears that 13 out of the 40 boxes seized by the FBI as part of ed by counsel for the consisted of files relating to the Civil Actions involving EPST EIN, as report discovery, Epstein will Bankruptcy Trustee. Until those boxes can be reviewed, as well as other not know the depth of the fraud and those Involved. EFTA00286293 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 12 fabricating settlements 30. By using the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN as "bait" and able to lure investors into regarding same, ROTHSTEIN and others were turn, was used to fund ROTHSTEIN'S lair and bilked them of millions of dollars which, in uing the massive Ponzi the litigation against EPSTEIN for the sole purpose of contin scheme. Team, Individually and in 31. As part of this scheme, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation a concerted effort, may have unethically and Illegally: of an interest in non- a. Sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with the sale able and non- settled personal injury lawsuits (which are non-assign (including those transferable) or sold non-existent structured settlements cases involving Epstein); rs; b. Reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawye c. Used investor money to pay plaintiffs (I.e., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up Civil Actions; front" money such that plaintiffs would refuse to settle the ns in violation of d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conversatio state or federal laws and Bar rules; and unreasonable and e. Utilized the judicial process including, but not limited to, ring the Ponzi unnecessary discovery, for the sole purpose of furthe scheme. including the Litigation 32. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, of various Florida Bar Rules, Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation EFTA00286294 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 and various conflicts of issues including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs rules. d have known of the improper 33. Evidencing that the Litigation Team knew or shoul continuation of the scheme, purpose that ROTHSTEIN was pursuing in the cases to pursue issues and ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPSTEIN pled in the Civil Actions, but evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the claims i scheme orchestrated by significantly beneficial to lure investors into the Ponz ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators. s claimed their investigators 34. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and other rd Epstein's private jet where discovered that there were high-profile individuals onboa bly others) copies of a flight log sexual assaults took place and showed D3 (and possi international figures. purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries, and knowingly pursued flight data 35. For instance, the Litigation Team relentlessly and with these famous individuals and passenger manifests regarding flights EPSTEIN took and no Illicit activities took knowing full well that no underage women were onboard tely attempted to take the place. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team also inappropria r the marketing scam that depositions of these celebrities In a calculated effort to bolste was taking place. of EPSTEIN'S pilots, and 36. One of Plaintiffs' counsel, EDWARDS, deposed three g in Iraq). The pilots were sought the deposition of a fourth pilot (currently servin ARDS never asked one deposed by EDWARDS for over twelve (12) hours, and EDW (RRA clients) as it related to question relating to or about E.W., Ill., and Jane Doe EFTA00286295 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 14 EIN'S planes. But EDWARDS transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of EPST ions about the pilots' thoughts asked many inflammatory and leading irrelevant quest only have been asked and beliefs (which will never be admissible at trial) which could the depositions to sell the for the purposes of "pumping" the cases and thus by using cases (or a part of them) to third parties. Epstein wanted to make 37. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed that and therefore he had offered certain none of these Individuals would be deposed various potential plaintiffs in $200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRA female clients dollar settlement by EPST EIN actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a $200 million . was completely fabricated; no such offer had ever been made intended to take the 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); itutional attorney (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, const . and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); (iii)Bill Clinton (Former President of the United States); (iv)Tommy Mottola (former President of Sony Record); and (v) David Copperfield (illusionist). es of EPSTEIN with 39. The above-named individuals were friends and acquaintanc the years. None of the whom he knew through business or philanthropic work over any of the Litigation above-named individuals had any connection whatsoever with Team's clients, E.W.,II. or Jane Doe. EFTA00286296 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 15 ries in the state court matters, 40. EDWARDS filed amended answers to interrogato that would allege dly be called E.W. and■., and listed additional high profile witnesses at trial, including, but not limited to: Richardson (Governor of New Mexico, formerly U.S. (i) Bill and Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations); charitable, (ii) Any and all persons having knowledge of EPSTEIN'S political or other donations;2 itions or listing high profile 41. The sole purpose of the scheduling of these depos again , to -pump" the cases to friends/acquaintances as potential witnesses was, these individuals had or have any investors. There is no evidence to date that any of knowledge regarding RRA's Civil Actions. scheme against EPSTEIN, 42. In furtherance of their illegal and fraudulent have known) and, at times, ■. ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: al action in a) Included claims for damages in Jane Does feder ng the excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply allegi Jurisdictional limits. legitimate b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview without any tial legal purpose other than to "pump* the federal case for poten 2 These high-profile celebrity "purported' witnesses have no personal knowledge regarding the facts on these "Three Cases', but were being contacted, subpoenaed or listed to harass and intimidate them and e. Epstein, and to add 'star" appeal to the marketing effort of the Ponzi schem EFTA00286297 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 trial in Palm investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair Beach County. d partner In c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another name RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, had no outrageous questions were asked of EPSTEIN which could be bearing on the case, but so that the video and questions shown to investors. letely irrelevant d) Conducted and attempted to conduct comp r of the Civil discovery unrelated to the claims in or subject matte witnesses Actions for the purpose of harassing and embarrassing of thousands and EPSTEIN and causing EPSTEIN to spend tens ding of dollars in unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs defen but was what appeared to be discovery related to the Civil Actions entirely related to the furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. spring of e) After EDWARDS was recruited and joined RRA in the st 2009, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases again ed EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger chang ns from dramatically in addressing the court on various motio y being substantive on the facts pled to ridiculously inflammator and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWARDS stated to the Court in "What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as EFTA00286298 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 17 back to far as our investigation and resources have permitted, attempt to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an we're not sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, talking talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not to law about 400, which, I believe, Is the number known . . and it enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children. ed is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devis him that where he has as many as 20 people working underneath these he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate girls." unsupportable and legally f) As an example, EDWARDS filed an fer of deficient Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Trans rty of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Prope tial Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Poten 3- Judgment, In Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-8089 Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ing). ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor follow d of However, the Court found "Plaintiffs motion entirely devoi evidence ... ", and denied the motion in toto. he 9) R