EFTA00607531.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. Plaintiff, 50 2009 cm) h 0,39 ME V. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN,findIvIdually, • BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, and COPY • LM., Individually, RECEIVED FOR FILING Defendants. DEC II 200g COMPII.INT Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter 'EPSTEIN", by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, Individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Individually, and ,.M., Individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: SUMMARY OFACTION 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 EFTA00607531 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 2 Rothstein and his co- and others. Rothstein and RFtA's fraud had no boundary, ns. Amongst the violations of law conspirators forged Federal court orders and opinio of non-existent Epstein settlements that are the subject of this lawsuit are the marketing were unrelated to any principled and the sanctioning of a series of depositions that er extraneous private information about litigation purpose but instead designed to discov (including well-known public figures) In .Epstein or his personal and business associates dema nds for payment from Epstein. tirderto defraud investors and support extortionate ns and the pursuit of a civil litigation The misconduct featured the filing of legal motio of their clients' cases and, instead, strategy that was unrelated to the merits or value tein's misrepresentations and deceit had as Its improper purpose the furthering of Roths t to abusive Investigatory tactics, to third party investors. As a result, Epstein was subjec filings. This lawsuit is filed and will unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal defendants. The Rothstein racketeering be vigorously pursued against all these values of both state and federal justice enterprise endeavored to compromise the core orking and honest lawyers and their systems in South Florida and to vindicate the hardw nduct that is the subject of this clients who were adversely affected by the misco Complaint. — co-conspirators as the Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional defendants facts and evidence is developed. GENERAL ALLEGATONS 00.00, exclusive costs, interest, 1. This is an action for damages In excess of $15,0 and attorneys' fees. EFTA00607532 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 3 residing and works in Palm Beach 2. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN, is an adult and currently Is County, Florida. is an individual residing in 3. Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN rROTHSTEIN"), law in the State of Florida. In Broward County; Florida, and was licensed to practice his law license In the midst of the November 2009, ROTHSTEIN voluntarily relinquished (RRA"). He was disbarred by the IrMil0sIon of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. On December 1. 2009, ROTHSTEIN Florida Supreme Court. on November 20, 2009. rd County, Florida. was arrested and arrelgnedln Federal Court In Browa the managing partner and CEO of 4. At all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN was RRA, and were the principal 5. Defendant ROTHSTEIN end Stuart Rosenfeldt, are owners. of RRA and each co-founded RRA. "), is an Individual residing in 6. Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS ("EDWARDS ce law in the State of Florida. At all Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practi yee, agent, associate, partner, times relevant hereto, EDWARDS was an emplo shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA. 7. Defendant I.M. ("L.M.1, is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, ■. was represented by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and essential participant in the EDWARDS in a civil lawsuit against Epstein and was an y changing prior sworn scheme referenced infra by, among other things, substantiall ting their fraudulent scheme for the testimony, so as to assist the Defendants in promo EFTA00607533 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 4 the Civil Actions (defined below) promise of a mulll-mllilon dollar recovery relative to hor alleged damages. involving Epstein, which was completely out of proportion to ration , with a principal 8. Non-party, RRA is a Florida Professional Service Corpo rdale, FL 33401. In addition address of 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Laude offices In Florida, New York, and to Its principal office, RRA also maintained seven rt staff. RRA also maintains Venezuela, and employed over 70 attorneys and 200 suppo a 33909-8515. RRA, through an office at 1109 NE 2d Street, Hallendale Beach, Florid herein, conducted business Its attorneys, Including those named as Defendants cted business and filed lawsuits on throughout Florida, and relevant to this action, condu (RRA is currently a debtor In behalf of clients In Palm Beach County, Florida. bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Defendant). FACTUAL ALLEBATIoNs v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 9. The United States In United States of America South ern District of Florida, has 09-60331CR-Cohn, United States District Court, . § 1962(d) against Scott W. brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, 18 U.S.C an of RRA. Within the Rothstein who was the chief executive officer and chairm identif ied the enterprise Information which was filed, the United States of America has In conjunction with "hls co- as being the law firm, RRA, through which Rothstein in the pattern of racketeering conspirators" (not yet identified by the USA) engaged sometime in 2005 up through ' • through its base of operation at the offices of RRA from al activities, Including and continuing Into November of 2009. Through various crimin ca asserts that moll fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of Ameri EFTA00607534 Epstein v.110.4.44.4, 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. conduct alleged In the Instant "Rothstein and co-conspirators initiated the criminal to supplement the Income and information in order to personally enrich themselves and absence of Rothstein and his co- sustain the daily operation of RRA." In essence, In the operation of RRA, which included 'Conspirators conducting the Renzi schema, the daily accou nts payable including payroll (compensation to lawyers, staff, Investigators, etc.), tigation on cases, including unlimited Improper, harassing and potential illegal Inves not have been sustainable. A copy Epstein-related matters, would in all likelihood would . of the Information is attached as Exhibit *I to this action out as legitimately and properly 10. As more fully set forth herein, RRA held itself and others In RRA were using engaging in the practice of law. In reality, ROTHSTEIN , so as to bilk investors out of hundreds RRA to market Investments, as described below elaborate plan of millions of dollars. ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA devised an of a structured pay-out through which were sold purported confidential assignments 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 tment which was to be paid out being promised In excess of a 30% return on their Inves cases relied upon to Induce Investor to the investors over time. While some of the the confidential, structured pay-out funding were existing filed cases, It is believed that settlements were all fabricated. EFTA00607535 Epstain v. RRA, et at. Page 6 of Investigation (FBI) press 11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau Ponzl scheme and pattern of conferences arid reteases and the Information the massive In 2005 and continued through criminal activity meant to lure Investors began sometime by some of the Investors and the FBI. the fall of 2009, when the scheme was uncovered and continue to be filed against various As of November of 2009, civil lawsuits were al scheme. Defendants as result of their massive fraudulent and crimin ced by the filing of 12. This fraudulent and Illegal investment scheme Is also eviden Transfer of Corporate Powers Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For Emergency the Appointment of A Custodian or to Stuart A. Rosenfefdt, Or, In The Alternative, For STEIN, individually, (Case No. 00 Receiver by ROSENFELDT, and RRA, against ROTH Judicial Circuit, Broward County, 059301, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth ution action, and attached Florida, Complex Business Div.), (hereinafter "RRA dissol hereto as Exhibit 2). for the sole purpose that it 13. Plaintiff references the RRA dissolution action in fact conducting an Illegal and acknowledges that RRA and ROTHSTEIN were promises of financial returns from improper Investment or Ponzl scheme based on ing the actions brought settlements or outcomes of supposed legal actions, includ against Plaintiff EPSTEIN. The RRA dissolution action alleges in part that — the firm (RRA), has, according to "ROTHSTEIN, the managing partner and CEO of antial misappropriation of assertions of certain Investors, allegedly orchestrated a subst law firm's name (RRA). The funds from investor trust accounts that made use of the STEIN centered around the sale of investment business created and operated by ROTH EFTA00607536 Epstein v. RRA, at al. Page 7 Preliminary Statement of RRA dissoluti on interests in structured settlements.° See action, Exhibit 2 hereto. letterhead was used In communications 14. In furtherance of the scheme, RRA's 's trust purported structured settlements. RRA regarding investment opportunities in monies of millions of dollars or wire transfer of account was used to deposit hundreds RRA personally guaranteed payments. from duped Investors and other victims. rt to manufacture false and fraudulent Cou 15; Rothstein's scheme went so far as A- signatures of U.S. District Judge, Kenneth opInkms/ordera including forging the It Is not Susan H. Black, 1144 Circuit in other cases. Marra and U.S. Circuit Cold Judge, ite in Espteln related matters. See Compos yet known ff he forged similar documents Exhibit 3 hereto. ugh me are being revealed on a daily basis thro 16. The details of this fraudulent sche cial ments. The most recent estimate of the finan various media reports and court docu billion dollars. scope of the scheme is that it exceeds $12 civil currently named as a defendant In three 17. Relevant to this anion, EPSTEIN is its and battery that were handled by RRA and actions alleging, inter alia, sexual assault ral its implosion — one of which is filed in fede attorneys including EDWARDS prior to is a 0S-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla.XJane Doe court (Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. which have been filed In state court In the le named Defendant herein), and two of nty, State of Florida, v. Epstein, Case No. Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach Cou O(MB v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA026058)OC 502008CA028051)OOO(MB AB; E.W. EFTA00607537 Epstein v. RRA, et al; Pep 8 "Civil Actions,' and 1_,M is a named AB), (hereinafter collectively referred to as the August and September of 2008. Defendant herein). The Civil Actions wore all filed In ment or Ponzl scheme was 18. Whet Is clear Is that a fraudulent and improper invest n of the named Defendants, which In fact conducted and operated by RRA and certai defendant In the Chill Actions. scheme directly Impacted EPSTEIN as a named itz, was quoted In a November 2009 • 19; Marn1 attorney entneveloper, Alen Sakow as a potential Investor In August of artielinSfsatifnlytethe had met with ROTHSTEIN ced it was all a Ponzl scheme 2009, but became suspicious. He stated 'I was convin was hiding behind a legitimate and 1 notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN Sakowitz was also quoted as saying law firm to peddle fake investments." Attorney ment and former law enforcement ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesdropping equip garbage looking for damaging officers who would sift through a potential defendants' 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. multiple Rothstein related 20. Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents used the "Epstein Ploy .., Investors. He indicated In an article that RRNRothsteln had money. He would use. . .cases as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised all the All the cases he allegedly structured as bait for luring investors into fictional cases. in there." In fact, on November 20, were fictional. I don't believe there was a real one filed a 147 page Complaint against 2009, William Scherer, on behalf of certain clients, TD Bank, N.A., Frank ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Debra Villegas, Andrew Barnett, EFTA00607538 Epstein y. RRA, et al. Page 9 rting various anne Caretsky and Frank Preve asse Spinosa, Jennifer Kerstetter, Ros and Ponzl scheme behind the RRA façade; allegations that further prove the massive additional page Amended Complaint naming as of November 25, 2009, a 249 Defentients was filed. bie and belief, ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Deb 21. hi addition, and upon Information loyees of RRA) on and Kenneth Jenne (all emp VIllegas, Andrew Barnett, Michael Pist h false stage regular meetings during whic through brokers or middlemen would RRA had ber of cases/clients that existed or statements were made about the num files They would show and share actual case against EPSTEIN and the value thereof. clients ge fund managers. Thus, the attorneys and from the EPSTEIN actions with hed e may have work- product privileges that otherwis have waived any attorney-client or existed. l Action n access to some of the actual Civi 22. Because potential investors were give ting Plaintiff became aware of a name of an exis files, Investor-third partios may have her legal tein and had opposed disclosure of who had filed anonymously against Eps Name. the need HSTEIN and EDWARDS claiming 23. In all other instances, by RRA, ROT effectively or fabricated clients, they were able to for anonymity with regard to existing in the designations which was a key element use Initials, Jane Doe or other anonymous ld be created to make the investors believe fraudulent scheme. Fictitious names cou many other cases existed against Epstein. EFTA00607539 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Prise to RRA and Plaintiffs are or were represented by 24. In each of RRA's Civil Actions, the and EDWARDS. its attorneys, Including ROTHSTEIN ons another fifty told that in addition to the Civil Acti 25. in addition, investors were for hundreds represented by RRA, with the potential (50) plus anonymous females were Epstein and that RRA and its attorneys would sue of millions of dollars in settlements, ds. amounts to protect his high-profile frien unless he paid exorbitant-settlement e known that f, EDWARDS knew or should hav 26. Upon information and belie me and/or wore a front for the massive Ponzi sche ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as r claims) involving ent in the Civil Actions (and othe selling an alleged Interest or investm Epstein. RRA) knew S (and possibly other attorneys of 27. Further evidencing that EDWARD massive Ponzi ted in the continuation of the or should have known and participa reported on article, dated November 24, 2009, scheme, a front-page Palm Beach Post "dozens of iture com plaint by prosecutors against the recent filing of an amended forfe r assets — s, foreign cars, restaurants and othe ROTHSTEIN's real estate propertie millions more k account In Morocco, along with including $12 million in the lawyer's ban rted that - ritable funds." The article further repo donated to political campaigns and cha into millions of dollars from his massive Attorney Scott ROTHSTEIN topped costs at his expanding Fort Lauderdale investment scam to cover payroll records released Monday. law firm, federal authorities said in court one generated revenue of $8 million in ROTHSTEiN's law firm (RRA) firm had a payroll of $18 million, recent year, yet his 70-lawyer law EFTA00607540 Epoteln.v. RRA, et al. 'Pagt!'11 RRA used Investors' prosecutors said. lkoTHSTEIN, who owned half of all, they said. money from his Ponzl scheme to make up the shortf ROTHSTEIN received Subsequent articles and court filings have reflected million In 2009, while compensation in excess of $35.7 million In 2008 and $10.5 million In 2008. his partner Rosehfeldt received greater than $6 as D3 Capital Club, LW, ("Dr, 28. ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure the entity known court settlement by offering D3 'e opportunity" to invest in a pre-suit $30,000,000.00 existed and was entirely against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never STEIN, upon Information and belief, fabricated. To augment his concocted story, ROTH of case files in Jane Doe invited D3 to his office to view thirteen (13) banker's boxes antiate that the claims against EPSTEIN (one of the Civil Actions)! in an attempt to subst against him by RRA. ROTHSTEIN, and were legitimate and that the evidence obtained EDWARDS (the "Litigation Team") was real. others offered other investors like 29. Upon Information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and in the Civil Actions Involving EPSTEIN. the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities ionable police record and RRA Flsten (a fon-nor Dade County police officer with a quest ty Sheriff and felon) assisted investigator) and Jenne (a former attorney, Broward Coun confid ential, privileged and work- ROTHSTEIN In making these offers by providing product Information to prospective third-party investors. as part of Its Investigation at RRA ' It appears that 13 out of the 40 boxes seized by the FBI EIN, as repotted by counsel for the consisted of flies relating to the Chill Actions Involving EPST be review ed, as well as other discovery, Epstein will Bankruptcy Trustee. Until those boxes can not know the depth of the fraud and those Involved. EFTA00607541 Epstein v. FiRA, et al. Paga 12 N as "bait* and fabricating settlements 30. By using the Civil Actions against EPSTEI Into rs were able to lure investors regarding same; ROTHSTEIN and othe to fund ons of dollars which, In turn, was used ROTHSTEIN'S lair and baked them of milli zi sole purpose of continuing the massive Pon the litigation against EPSTEIN for the scheme. In and the Litigation Team, Individually and 31. As part of this scheme, ROTHSTEIN end Illegally: a conceded effort, may have unethically d with the sale of an Interest In non- a. Sold, allowed to be sold and/or assiste ere non-assignable and non- settled personal injury lawsuits (which ed settlements (including those transferable) or sold non-existent structur cases involving Epstein); rneys fees with non-lawyers; b. Reached agreements to share atto tiffs (I.e., E.W. and Jane Doe) "up c. Used investor, money to pay plain se to settle the Civil Actions; front" money such that plaintiffs would refu rcepted conversations In violation of d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or Inte state or federal laws and Bar rules; and , but not limited to, unreasonable and e. Utilized the judicial procass including purpose of furthering the Ponzl unnecessary discovery, for the sole scheme, other attorneys, Including the Litigation 32. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and s, lly be a violation of various Florida Bar Rule Team, directly or indirectly, would potentia EFTA00607542 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 and various conflicts of Issues including prohibiting the improper sharing of tees or costs rules. have known of the Improper 33. Evidencing that the Litigation Team knew or should continuation of the scheme, purpose that ROTHSTEIN was pursuing In the EIN cases to pursue Issues and ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPST claims pled In the Civil Actions, but evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by significantly beneficial to lure investors into the ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators. claimed their Investigators 34. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others rd Epsteln's private jet where discovered that there wore high-profile Individuals onboa possib ly others) copies of a flight log sexual assaults took place and showed D3 (and and international figures. purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries, and knowingly pursued flight data 35. For Instance, the Litigation Team relentlessly EPSTEIN took with these famous Individuals and passenger manifests regarding flights rd and no Illicit activities took knowing full well that no underage women wore onboa ropriately attempted to take the place. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team also inapp to bolster the marketing scam that depositions of these celebrities In a calculated effort was taking place. three of EPSTEIN'S pilots, and 36. One of Plaintiffs' counsel, EDWARDS, deposed serving In Iraq). The pilots wore sought the deposition of a fourth pilot (currently , and EDWARDS never asked one deposed by EDWARDS for over twelve (12) hours question relating to or about E.W., ■., and Jane Doe (RRA clients) as it related to EFTA00607543 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 14 planes, But EDWARDS transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of EPSTEIN'S the pilots' thoughts asked many Inflammatory and leading Irrelevant questions about could only have been asked and beliefs (which will never be admissible at trial) which depositions to sell the for the purposes of apUrnping• the cases and thus by using the cases (or apart of them) to third parties. 1 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 settlement by EPST EIN actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a $200 million dollar 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: (1) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); Law professor, constitutional attorney (ti) Alan Dershowltz (noted Harvard . and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); (iii)Bill Clinton (Former President of the United States); and (iv)Tommy Mottola (former Presidentof Sony Record); (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 of the Litigation above-named Individuals had any connection whatsoever with any Team's clients, E.W.,11. or Jane Doe. EFTA00607544 Epstein v. PRA, et al. Page 15 es In the state court matters, 40. EDWARDS filed amended answers to interrogatod dly be called E . and ■, and listed additional high profile witnesses that would allege at trial, Including, but not limited to: rly U.S. (i) Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico, forme and Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations); EPSTEIN'S charitable, (ii).Any arid all persons having knowledge of political or other donations:2 depositions or listing high profile 41. The sole purpose of the scheduling of these , to "pump' the cases to friends/acqualntances as potential witnesses was, again of these Individuals had or have any Investors. There is no evidence to date that any knowledge reg'ardIng RRA's Civil Asthma. scheme against EPSTEIN, 42. 1n furtherance of their illegal and fraudulent have known) and, at times, L.M. ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: federal action in a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's g the excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply allegin Jurisdictional Hmits. legitimate b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media Interview without any potential legal purpose other than to "pump" the federal case for 2 Those high-profile celebrity 'put pui witnesses have no personal knowledge regarding the facts on these 'Three Cases', but were being contacted, subpoeof naed or listed to harass and Intimidate them and Epstein, and to add 'shwa appeal to the marketing effort the Ponzl scheme. EFTA00607545 Epstein v. RRA et al. Page 16 in Palm investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial Beach County. d partner In c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another name RRA) ail attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, no outrageous questions were asked of EPSTEIN which had ons could be bearing on the case, but so that the video and questi shown to Investors. Irrelevant d) Conducted and attempted to conduct completely the CM discovery unrelated to the claims in or subject matter of witnesses Actions for the purpose of harassing end embarrassing thousands and EPSTEIN and causing EPSTEIN to spend tens of defending of dollars in unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs s but was whet appeared to be discovery related to the Civil Action e. entirely related to the furtherance of the Ponzi schem the spring of e) After EDWARDS was recruited and joined RRA in t 2009, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases agains changed EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger