EFTA00795588.pdf

• IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, cor.50.2929aufactigIVP111, CASE NO. • A Aq Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and .M., individually, Defendants. CO COMPL Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY 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 EFTA00795588 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 2 and others. Rothstein and RRA's fraud had no boundary; Rothstein and his co- conspirators forged Federal court orders and opinions. Amongst the violations of law that are the subject of this lawsuit are the marketing of non-existent Epstein settlements and the sanctioning of a series 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 order to defraud investors and support extortionate demands for payinent from Epstein. The misconduct featured the filing of legal motions and ursuit of a civil litigation strategy that was unrelated to the merits or valu\ clients' cases and, instead, had as its improper purpose the furthering Ato i ste 's misrepresentations and deceit to third party investors. As a result, Epstein was subject to abusive investigatory tactics, unprincipled media attacks, and unsupportable legal filings. This lawsuit is filed and will be vigorously pursued against all these defendants. The Rothstein racketeering enterprise endeavored to compromise the core values of both state and federal justice systems in South Florida and to vindicate the hardworking and honest lawyers and their clients who K‘ adversely e affected by the misconduct that is the subject of this Complain Plainti reserves the right to add additional defendants — co-conspirators as the facts and evidence is developed. GENERAL ALLEGATONS 1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. EFTA00795589 Epstein v. RRA, et al. 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 n , Florida. 4. At all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN naging partner and CEO of RRA. 5. Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and Stuall osenfeldt, 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, L.M. ("L.M."), is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, L.M. 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 EFTA00795590 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 4 promise of a multi-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 address of 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3340144ddition to its principal office, RRA also maintained seven offices in Florida, Cv York, and Venezuela, and employed over 70 attorneys and 200 support staff. RRA also maintains an office at 1109 NE 2d Street, Hallendale Beach, Florida 33009-85'15. RRA, through its attorneys, including those named as Defendant n, conducted business throughout Florida, and relevant to this action, coryft jusiness and filed lawsuits on behalf of clients in Palm Beach County, a. (RRA is currently a debtor in A bankruptcy. RRA is not named as a Deferidant FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The United States in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, 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 wh as the chief executive officer and chairman of RRA. Within the informati h as filed, the United States of America has identified the enterprise as bein law firm, RRA, through which Rothstein in conjunction with "his co- conspirators" (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 mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, the United States of America asserts that EFTA00795591 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 5 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 Rothstein and his co- conspirators conducting the Ponzi scheme, the daily operation of RRA, which included payroll (compensation to lawyers, staff, investigators, etc.), accounts' payable including unlimited improper, harassing and potential illegal in ig ion on cases, including Epstein-related matters, would in all likelihood wo e been sustainable. A copy of the information is attached as Exhibit 1 to thC act 10. As more fully set forth herein, RRA 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 investments, as described below, so as to bilk investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA devised an elaborate plan through which were sold purported confidential assignments of a structured pay-out settlements, supposedly reached on behalf of RRA for clients, in exchange for immediate payments to these clients of a 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 relied upon to induce investor funding were existing filed cases, it is believed that the confidential, structured pay-out settlements were all fabricated. EFTA00795592 • Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 6 11. Based on media reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) press conferences and releases and the Information the massive Ponzi scheme and pattern of criminal activity meant to lure investors began sometime in 2005 and continued through the fall of 2009, when the scheme was uncovered by some of the investors and the FBI. As of November of 2009, civil lawsuits were and continue to be filed against various Defendants as result of their massive fraudulent and criminal scheme. 12. This fraudulent and illegal investment scheme is also evidened by the filing of Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For Emergen nsfer of Corporate Powers to Stuart A. Rosenfeldt, Or, In The Alternative, FAt Adpointment of A Custodian or Receiver by ROSENFELDT, and RRA, agai st s sT TEIN, individually. (Case No. 09 k 059301, In the Circuit Court of the 'I‘Sevent nth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Complex Business Div.)4 k'nler "RRA dissolution action, and attached hereto as Exhibit 2). 13. Plaintiff references e PRA dissolution action for the sole purpose that it acknowledges that RRA And ROTHSTEIN were in fact conducting an illegal and improper inv ent or Ponzi scheme based on promises of financial returns from settleme 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 EFTA00795593 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 7 interests in structured settlements." See Preliminary Statement of RRA dissolution action, Exhibit 2 hereto. 14. In furtherance of the scheme, RRA's letterhead was used in communications regarding investment opportunities in purported structured settlements. RRA's trust account was used to deposit hundreds of millions of dollars or wire transfer of monies from duped investors and other victims. RRA personally guaranteed payments. 15. Rothstein's scheme went so far as to manufacture false and fraudulent Court opinions/orders including forging the signatures of U. rict Judge, Kenneth A. Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Bla rcuit in other cases. It is not yet known if he forged similar documents in n elated matters. See Composite Exhibit 3 hereto. 16. The details of this fraudulent scheme are being revealed on a daily basis through various media reports and court documents. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is that it exceeds $1.2 billion dollars. 17. Relevant to this action, EPSTEIN is currently named as a defendant in three civil actions alleging, inter alia, sexual assault and battery that were handled by RRA and its attorneys including EDWARDS prior to its implosion — one of which is filed in federal court (Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla.)(Jane Doe is a named Defendant herein), and two of which have been filed in state court in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, State of Florida, (L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB EFTA00795594 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 8 AB), (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Civil Actions," and L.M 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 Ponzi scheme was in fact conducted and operated by RRA and certain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He stated "I was convin was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTH s hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake investments." Atto,r ak3witz was also quoted as saying ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and former law enforcement officers who would sift through a potential defendants' garbage looking for damaging evidence to use with investors to show how potential defendants could be in essence blackmailed into paying settlement that far exceeded the value of any legitimate damage claim. 20. Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used the "Epstein Ploy ... as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised 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, William Scherer, on behalf of certain clients, filed a 147 page Complaint against ROTHSTEIN, David Boden, Debra Villegas, Andrew Barnett, TD Bank, N.A., Frank EFTA00795595 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 9 Spinosa, Jennifer Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsky and Frank Preve asserting various allegations that further prove the massive Ponzi scheme behind the RRA facade; and as of November 25, 2009, a 249 page Amended Complaint naming additional Defendants was filed. 21. In addition, and upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN, David an, ebbie Villegas, Andrew Barnett, Michael Fisten and Kenneth Jenne (all employees of RRA) through brokers or middlemen would stage regular meetings during which false statements were made about the number of cases/cl at existed or RRA had against EPSTEIN and the value thereof. They w and share actual case files from the EPSTEIN actions with hedge fund mCige Thus, the attorneys and clients have waived any attorney-client or work- product privileges that otherwise may have existed. 22. Because potential investors were given access to some of the actual Civil Action files, investor-third parties may have became aware of a name of an existing Plaintiff who had filed anony #,ly against Epstein and had opposed disclosure of her legal name. c, 23. In III dttterinstances, by RRA, ROTHSTEIN and EDWARDS 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 fraudulent scheme. Fictitious names could be created to make the investors believe many other cases existed against Epstein. EFTA00795596 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 EDWARDS. 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, EDWARDS knew or should 'have known that ROTHSTEIN was utilizing RRA as a front for the mass nzi scheme and/or were selling an alleged interest or investment in the Ci • (and other claims) involving Epstein. 27. Further evidencing that EDWARDA 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, EFTA00795597 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 11 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, w He his partner Rosenfeldt received greater than $6 million in 2008. 28. ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure the entity known as D3 Capita , -C, ("D3"), by offering D3 "the opportunity" to invest in a pre-suit $30,000y000.1 urt settlement L against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never exiitid.)and was entirely fabricated. To augment his concocted story, ROTHSTEIN, upon information and belief, invited D3 to his office to view thirteen (13) bankers boxes of case files in Jane Doe (one of the Civil Actions)' in an attempt to sit rbate that the claims against EPSTEIN 4 were legitimate and that the evidence ob against him by RRA, ROTHSTEIN, and EDWARDS (the "Litigation Tea 29. Upon information andlbe y)OTHSTEIN and others offered other investors like the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities in the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN. Fisten (a former Dade County police officer with a questionable police record and RRA investigator nne (a former attorney, Broward County Sheriff and felon) assisted ROTH + making these offers by providing confidential, privileged and work- produ info information to prospective third-party investors. ' It appears that 13 out of the 40 boxes seized by the FBI as part of its investigation at RRA consisted of files relating to the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN, as reported by counsel 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. EFTA00795598 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 12 30. By using the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN as "bait" and fabricating settlements regarding same, ROTHSTEIN and others were able to lure investors into ROTHSTEIN'S lair and bilked them of millions of dollars which, in turn, was used to fund the litigation against EPSTEIN for the sole purpose of continuing the massive Ponzi scheme. 31. 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/or assisted whale of an interest in non- settled personal injury lawsuits ( 1 r non-assignable and non- transferable) or sold non-existeitruc red settlements (including those cases involving Epstein); b. Reached agreements to share attorneys fees with non-lawyers; c. Used investor money 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; d. Conducted searches, wiretaps or intercepted conversations in violation of ISe or , federal laws and Bar rules; and ~Itili ed the judicial process including, but not limited to, unreasonable and ` unnecessary discovery, for the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme. 32. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, and other attorneys, including the Litigation Team, directly or indirectly, would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, EFTA00795599 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 thMheme, ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPSTEIN cases to put issues and evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the claims pled in th Actions, but significantly beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi schEn6 orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN and other co-conspirators. 34. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN claimed their investigators discovered that there were high-profile individas, offboard 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, EDWARDS, deposed three of EPSTEIN'S pilots, and sought the deposition of a fourth pilot (currently serving in Iraq). The pilots were deposed by EDWARDS for over twelve (12) hours, and EDWARDS never asked one question relating to or about E.W., L.M., and Jane Doe (RRA clients) as it related to EFTA00795600 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 14 transportation on flights of RRA clients on any of EPSTEIN'S planes. But EDWARDS asked many inflammatory and leading irrelevant questions about the pilots' thoughts and beliefs (which will never be admissible at trial) which could only have been asked for the purposes of "pumping" the cases and thus by using the depositioniiii‘ sell the cases (or a part of them) to third parties. #4S 37. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed that Epste wanted to make certain none of these individuals would be deposed and therefoie he had offered $200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRA female die v 'ous potential plaintiffs in actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a $200As i t lar settlement by EPSTEIN was completely fabricated; no such offer had 4 -be made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowiti (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); ill Clinton (Former President of the United States); T mmy Mottola (former President of Sony Record); and (v) David Copperfield (illusionist). 39. 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 Doe. EFTA00795601 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 15 40. EDWARDS filed amended answers to interrogatories in the state court matters, E.W. and L.M., and listed additional high profile witnesses that would allegedly be called at trial, including, but not limited to: (i) Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico, formerly U.S. Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations); and (ii) Any and all persons having knowledge of EPSTEIN'S charitable, political or other donations;2 41. The sole purpose of the scheduling of these d sitions or listing high profile friends/acquaintances as potential witnesses w , to "pump" the cases to investors. There is no evidence to date tha f ese individuals had or have any knowledge regarding RRA's Civil Action n? r 42. In furtherance of their i O w a fraudulent scheme against EPSTEIN, ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) rces ded claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in s of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview without any legitimate legal purpose other than to "pump" the federal case for potential 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 Epstein, and to add "star" appeal to the marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00795602 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were asked of EPSTEIN which had no bearing on the case, but so that the video and questions could be shown to investors. d) Conducted and attempted to completely irrelevant discovery unrelated to the gi\i re r subject matter of the Civil Actions for the purpos ra sing and embarrassing witnesses and EPSTEIN and caus n&EPSTEIN to spend tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary attorneys' fees and costs defending what appeared to be discovery related to the Civil Actions but was entirely related to the furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. EDWARDS was recruited and joined RRA in the spring of 09, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by Attorney EDWARDS and Berger changed dramatically in addressing the court on various motions from being substantive on the facts pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWARDS 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 EFTA00795603 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 17 far as our investigation and resources have permitted, back to 1997 or '98 — has every single day of his life, made an attempt to sexually abuse children. We're not talking about five, we're not talking about 20, we're not talking about 100, we're not talking about 400, which, I believe, is the number known to law enforcement, we are talking about thousands of children. . . and it is through a very intricate and complicated system that he devised where he has as many as 20 peo ing underneath him that he is paying well to schedu pointments, to locate these girls." f) As an example, EthV S filed an unsupportable and legally deficient Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of \4 7/ Epst 1 dn to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential ent, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- arra/Johnson. 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 toto. g) ROTHSTEIN told investors he had another 52 females that he represented, and that Epstein had offered $200 million to resolve, EFTA00795604 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 18 but that he could settle, confidently, these cases for $500 million, separate and apart from his legal fees. 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 reasons: (I) L.M. — testified she never had type of sex with Epstein; worked at numerous,)strip clubs; is an admitted prostitut II girl; has a history of illegal drug ainkillers, Xanax, Ecstasy); * r asserted the 5th Amendment and conCiballS during her depositions in order to avoid answering vent but problem questions for her; (ii) k — 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 were allegedly selling prescription painkillers and drugs to customers and prostituting themselves. (iii) Jane Doe (federal case) seeks $50 million from Epstein. She and her attorneys claim severe EFTA00795605 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 19 emotional distress as a result of her having voluntarily gone to Epstein's home. She testified that there was never oral, and or sexual intercourse; nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet, Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress a result of having well prior to meeting Epstein\echfr, witnessed her father murderitils girlfriend's son. She was required ve sworn testimony in that matter and d that she has lied in sworn testimo alanTDoe worked at two different strip du including Platinum Showgirls in Boynton . i) Conduct culous and irrelevant discovery such as subpoenaihg records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard in Massachusetts, when the alleged police report reflected t at EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor in Palm Beach named Dr. Bard. No records relating to EPSTEIN existed for this alleged sex therapist, Dr. Bard, and the alleged subpoena for records was just another mechanism to "pump" the cases for investor appeal; j) Allowed a Second Amended Complaint to be filed 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 EFTA00795606 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 20 intercourse with EPSTEIN and she had never touched his genitalia. k) Told investors, as reported in an Associated Press article, that celebrities and other famous people had flown on EPSTEIN'S plane when assaults took place. Therefore, even though none (zero) of RRA's clients claim they flew of EPSTEIN'S planes, the Litigation Team sought pilot and plane logs. I Why? Again, to prime the investment "pump" w money without any relevance to the existing cla y the RRA clients. 41 4 / I) After EDWARDS joined RRA, EDWARDS and former Circuit Judge William Berger filed and argued motion to make the Non- Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and USAO public. But, RRA, EDWARDS and Berger, and their three clients, already had a copy of the NPA. They knew what it said and they 1 4, the civil provisions in the agreement had no impact atsoever on the three pending Civil Actions. 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." EFTA00795607 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 21 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 nOn-existent claims against EPSTEIN to potential investors. 45. As a result of the fraudulent investme zi) scheme, RRA and its fr., attorneys in the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN ma S have compromised their clients' interests. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team would have been unable to give unbiased 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 plaintiffs 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 EFTA00795608 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 22 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 oath, to being a call girl/escort lit ce the age of 15. (in her deposition September 24, 2009 Transcript 280:16-19). She testified "Well, I lived life as a prostitute," 1'T 156:7) and "I am a prostitute when I make money" (see hl> 2-13). L.M. admitted her activity with men other than Epstei'nin y g $1,000 a day from prostitution on maybe more than 20 occasions one year alone (DT 157:11-158:21). L.M. admitted under oa _keeping a list of amounts she collected from ( "Johns" in "two or th' d books including a book of "Psalms" that she obtained from a religidus store (DT 152:1-14). Under the circumstances, her claim for damages against EPSTEIN, one of L.M.'s many "Johns" during that same period, would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to "RRA's investors." 47. In April 2007, before she was represented by EDWARDS, and RRA, L.M. gave sworn taped recorded testimony to the agents of the FBI. She was represented by a lawyer other than EDWARDS 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 EFTA00795609 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 23 EDWARDS and RRA, L.M.'s story changed dramatically. All of a sudden she wanted to sue EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn 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 awesome guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing." (pp. 57-58 - FBI). I .M. spoke so highly of EPSTEIN and her interactions wit t the US Attorney's office informed a federal court in J 0 that the US Attorney could not consider L.M. a victim. A1 4/ Yet, by S@pterrlber 24, 2009, the date on which L.M. began her deposition i he civil action and now represented by RRA and EDWARDS, 1.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 206:8) "He 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) EFTA00795610 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 24 "You don't think my whole life I have lived that shifty life because of Jeffrey Epstein?" (DT 222:7-8) b. In her sworn FBI testimony (pre-EDWARDS and RRA), L.M. was emphatic that her interactions with Epstein involved no iraropriate sexual touching in any way. In fact, it was exactly the opp Q: Did he at any point kiss you, touch you any kind of affection towards you? A: Never, never. (p. 21 — FBI) . . Q: So he never pulled you do t in a sexual way? A: I wish. No, no, ney eve ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no., BI) her second amended complaint in April 2009, after EDWARDS joined RRA, the allegations against EPSTEIN in complaint became even more salacious. In paragraph 12 of <SL7 .'s Second Amended Complaint, L.M. 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 were 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..." EFTA00795611 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 25 c. In her sworn FBI statement (pre-EDWARDS and RRA), L.M. testified that the individual who first brought L.M. to EPSTEIN's home, told L.M. "make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls." (p. 8 - FBI). #4 4IC Yet at her September, 2009 deposition 0 resented by EDWARDS and RRA, L.M. told a very different st • Q: My question was what did Carolr lI you to tell Mr. Epstein about your age? A: She said it didn't matt • 0: That's your recollection about what she said? A: Yes, she said — I remember her saying it doesn't matter. Don't worry about it. (DT 199:20-25) d. Pre-EDWARDS and RRA, L.M. testified to the FBI : "I always made sure - I had a fake ID, anyways saying that I was 18." (p. 8 - FBI). Yet, when questioned about her fake ID at her September 2009 depo, she stated: Q: And did you have a fake ID? A: No. Q: Have you ever had a fake ID? EFTA00795612 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 26 A: No. (DT 300:5-8) e. In her FBI statement (pre-EDWARDS and RRA), L.M. testified about others L.M. brought to the Epstein home. L.M. testified that women she brought to EPSTEIN's home were eager for the opportunity and content with their experiences: A: None of my girls ever had a problem and they6d call me. They'd beg me, you know, for us to go t y's house because they love Jeffrey. Jeffrey is a res . He really is. I mean, and he all thought we were of6 a ays. This is what's so sad about it. (p 30 - FBI). O: Did any of the girls complain about what happened after they left there? Aclitik, You asked me that question. No, everybody loved Jeffrey. <S e(p. 44 - FBI) +so A: Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey, they said they were fine with