EFTA00587914.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, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, STUART ROSENFELDT, individually, RUSSELL ADLER, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, WILLIAM BERGER, individually, KENNETH JENNE, individually, MICHAEL FISTEN, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, JEFFERY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, STUART ROSENFELDT, individually, RUSSELL ADLER, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, WILLIAM BERGER, individually, KENNETH JENNE, individually, MICHAEL FISTEN, individually, and L.M., individually. Accordingly, EPSTEIN states: General Allegations 1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. EFTA00587914 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 2 SUMMARY OF ACTION 2. This case is an extension of a massive fraud and deception of unparalleled greed involving the abuse of the justice system by lawyers, law firms and others. The actions of ROTHSTEIN and others, including RRA, are a blight on the legal profession and an affront to every honest, hardworking attorney who renders services to clients, the community and the profession. 3. ROTHSTEIN and others sought to peddle influence and power, and in the process forged court orders and signatures (including Kenneth A. Marra, U.S. District Judge and Susan H. Black, U.S. Court of Appeals, 119) Circuit), prepared false and deceptive settlement documents in connection with cases allegedly involving EPSTEIN, and others made false and deceptive representation involving alleged Epstein settlements (current and future) and other alleged matters. 4. ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA, including, BERGER, ADLER and EDWARDS, abused the legal process, by not simply aggressively litigating existing cases, but conducting discovery and making media presentations that far exceeded the bounds of professionalism but which were designed to harass and intimidate witnesses and deponents and to "pump" the "saleable" value of the Civil Actions (defined herein), so ROTHSTEIN and others could then market purported settlements and secure millions from investors who bought into the Ponzi scam. 5. Without RRA and others, ROTHSTEIN would not have been able to market and sell the Epstein cases to investors. EFTA00587915 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 3 6. The Palm Beach Post in its editorial page opined that any suggestion ROTHSTEIN acted alone and was a one attorney show is simply not credible. Lawyers who proudly proclaimed they were partners in RRA until the implosion, have tucked tail and now claim they were employees of RRA. Yet, the Litigation Team either knew or should have known that JENNE (convicted former Broward County Sheriff) and FISTEN (former disgraced Miami-Dade Police Officer) were providing banker's boxes of EPSTEIN files (estimated to be 13) containing confidential, and privileged materials to show/market to investors; and that FISTEN was representing himself to be an active Miami-Dade Police Officer to gain access to and pry information from EPSTEIN'S employees and associates. 7. The RRA lawyers have years of experience former state attorney, civil practitioners, a circuit court judge — all of whom probably have served on various Florida Bar committees. Yet they claim a lack of knowledge of any indication that problems with the firm existed when: a. RRA had 24 hour security in the form of Broward County Sheriffs officers on each floor of the law offices; b. ROTHSTEIN had 24 hour (firm paid) security at his home; c. Partners/attorneys/staff could not directly access ROTHSTEIN without going through extensive security checks/doors and armed guards; d. Only ROTHSTEIN had access RRA's financial records and accountants including Florida Bar Trust Accounts; EFTA00587916 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 4 e. Salaries of some attorneys far exceeded worth of attorneys based on book of business, ability to generate business, political/judicial connections and collections; f. ROTHSTEIN ran the entire firm without input from others more senior and experienced than him; and g. As Shakespeare said, "thou cloth protest too much." 8. Plaintiff, EPSTEIN, is an adult and currently is residing and works in Palm Beach County, Florida. 9. 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. 10. At all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN was the managing partner and CEO of RRA. 11. Defendant, STUART ROSENFELDT ("ROSENFELDT"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, ROSENFELDT was the President of RRA. 12. Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and ROSENFELDT, are the principal owners of equity in RRA and each co-founded RRA. 13. Defendant, RUSSELL ADLER ("ADLER"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times EFTA00587917 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 5 relevant hereto, ADLER was the third-named partner of RRA and thus was an employee, agent, associate, partner, shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA. 14. 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. 15. Defendant, WILLIAM BERGER ("BERGER"), is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, BERGER was an employee, agent, associate, partner, shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA. 16. Defendant, KENNETH JENNE ("JENNE"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, JENNE was an employee of RRA, and was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, assisted in facilitating the investment in fabricated settlements outlined below including, but not limited to, the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein. 17. Defendant, MICHAEL FISTEN ("FISTEN"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, FISTEN was an employee of RRA, and was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, assisted in facilitating the investment in fabricated settlements outlined below including, but not limited to, the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein. 18. 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 the EFTA00587918 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 6 Litigation Team (defined below) and was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, allowing portions of her alleged personal injury lawsuit to be sold to investors in exchange for upfront money (directly or indirectly) or the promise of money relative to the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein. 19. Non-party, DAVID BODEN ("BODEN"), is an individual residing in Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant hereto, BODEN was a partner and General Counsel of RRA, and was ROTHSTEIN'S "right-hand man" and an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, recruiting and soliciting investors and drafting documents to induce investors into funding the fabricated settlements (existing or in the future) outlined below including, but not limited to, the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein. 20. Non-party, DEBBIE VILLEGAS (VILLEGAS), was the Chief Financial Officer of RRA, and/or an employee, agent, and/or other representative of RRA. 21. Non-party, ANDREW BARNETT ("BARNETT"), was Director of Corporate Development of RRA, and was an essential participant in the scheme referenced infra by, among other things, recruiting, soliciting and inducing investors to fund the fabricated settlements outlined below including, but not limited to, the Civil Actions (defined below) involving Epstein. 22. Non-party, RRA is a Florida Professional Service Corporation, with a principal address 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 200 support staff. RRA also maintains EFTA00587919 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 7 an office at 1109 NE 2d Street, Hallendale Beach, Florida 33009-8515. RRA, through its attorneys, including those named as Defendants herein, 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 as a Defendant). Factual Allegations 23. As more fully set forth herein, RRA held itself out as legitimately and properly engaging in the practice of law while, in reality, ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA were using RRA to market the investments 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 through a purported confidential assignment, structured pay-out settlements, supposedly reached on behalf of RRA clients, in exchange for payments to these clients of a lower or discounted lump sum amount. Investors were being promised in excess of a 30% return on their investment. While some of the cases relied upon to induce investor funding were actual filed cases, it is believed that the confidential, structured pay-out settlements were all fabricated. 24. 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 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 151h Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, State of Florida, (L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EFTA00587920 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 8 E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB 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. 25. Also based on media reports and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) press conferences and releases, 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. In November of 2009, civil lawsuits were and continue to be filed against various Defendants as result of their massive fraudulent and criminal scheme. 26. This fraudulent and illegal investment scheme is also evidenced by the recent filing of Amended Complaint For Dissolution And For Emergency Transfer of Corporate Powers to Stuart A. Rosenfeldt, Or, In The Alternative, For the Appointment of A Custodian or Receiver by ROSENFELDT, individually, (a named Defendant herein), and RRA, against ROTHSTEIN, individually, (also a named Defendant herein). (Case No. 09 059301, In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Complex Business Div.), (hereinafter "RRA dissolution action, and attached hereto as Exhibit 1). 27. Plaintiff references the RRA dissolution action for the sole purpose that it acknowledges that RRA and ROTHSTEIN were in fact conducting an illegal and improper investment or Ponzi 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 — EFTA00587921 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 9 "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 Mr. ROTHSTEIN centered around the sale of interests in structured settlements." See Preliminary Statement of RRA dissolution action, Exhibit 1 hereto. 28. 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 brought by ROTHSTEIN, the Litigation Team and L.M.. 29. The details of this fraudulent scheme are being revealed on a daily basis through various media reports, including FBI press conferences. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is as much as $1 billion dollars. 30. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a recent article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He stated "I was convinced it was all a Ponzi scheme and I notified the FBI in detail how Scotty ROTHSTEIN was hiding behind a legitimate law firm to peddle fake investments." Attorney Sakowitz was also quoted as saying ROTHSTEIN had sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and former law enforcement officers who would sift through a potential defendants' garbage. 31. Additionally, Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used the EFTA00587922 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 10 "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, BODEN, VILLEGAS, BARNETT, TD Bank, N.A., Frank Spinosa, Jennifer Kerstetter, Rosanne Caretsky and Frank Preve asserting various allegations that further prove the massive Ponzi scheme behind the RRA façade; and as of November 25, 2009, a 249 page Amended Complaint naming additional Defendants. 32. In addition, and upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, VILLEGAS, BARNETT, FISTEN and JENNE sometimes through brokers or middlemen, would stage regular meetings during which false statements were made about the number of cases against EPSTEIN and the value thereof, and they would show and share actual case files from the EPSTEIN actions with hedge fund managers. Thus, the attorneys and clients may well have waived any attorney-client or work- product privileges that otherwise may have existed. 33. Within the actual files, investor-third parties became aware of the names of the existing Plaintiffs who filed anonymously against Epstein and have opposed disclosure of their legal names. 34. In furtherance of the scheme, RRA's letterhead was used in communications regarding investment opportunities in purported structured settlements. RRA's trust EFTA00587923 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 11 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. 35. Rothstein's went so far as to manufacture false and fraudulent Court orders by forging the signature of U.S. District Judge, Kenneth A. Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Black, 11" Circuit. See Composite Exhibit 2 hereto. 36. In each of these Civil Actions, the Plaintiffs are or were represented by RRA and its attorneys, including ADLER, EDWARDS and BERGER. 37. Based upon recently filed lawsuits, media reports, statements of law enforcement personnel (FBI and others) and statements of attorneys for investors (as more fully detailed herein), Defendant, ROTHSTEIN and others in RRA, illegally and unethically solicited investors to invest monies in and/or to buy a financial interest in the potential outcome or alleged settlement of pending or prospective lawsuits or claims or structured settlements which included, but were not limited to, the Civil Actions involving Epstein. In addition, investors were told that another fifty (50) plus females were represented by RRA, with the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements, told investors RRA and its attorneys (including EDWARDS) would sue Epstein unless he paid exorbitant-settlement amounts to protect his high-profile friends. 38. Upon information and belief, Defendants, ROSENFELDT, ADLER, EDWARDS and BERGER knew or should have known that ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, BARNETT, VILLEGAS, FISTEN and JENNE were 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. EFTA00587924 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 12 39. Further evidencing that ROSENFELDT, ADLER, EDWARDS and BERGER 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. 40. 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 concocted 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)' in an attempt to substantiate that the claims against EPSTEIN were legitimate and that the evidence obtained against him by RRA, ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER, EDWARDS and BERGER (the "Litigation Team") was real. 1 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. EFTA00587925 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 13 41. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others offered other investors like the entity D3 fabricated investment opportunities in the Civil Actions involving EPSTEIN. FISTEN and JENNE assisted ROTHSTEIN in making these offers by providing confidential, privileged and work-product information to prospective third-party investors. 42. 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. 43. Upon information and belief, ROTHSTEIN and others claimed their investigators discovered that there were high-profile witnesses onboard Epstein's private jet where some of the alleged sexual assaults took place and showed D3 (and possibly others) copies of a flight log purportedly containing names of celebrities, dignitaries, and international figures. Because of these facts, ROTHSTEIN claimed EPSTEIN had offered $200,000,000.00 to settle the claims of RRA female clients various potential plaintiffs in actions against EPSTEIN. The offer of a $200 million dollar settlement by EPSTEIN was completely fabricated; no such offer had ever been made. 44. Also evidencing that the Litigation Team knew or should have known of the improper purpose that ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, BARNETT, VILLEGAS, FISTEN and JENNE were pursuing, and their participation 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 EFTA00587926 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 14 significantly beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, BARNETT, VILLEGAS, FISTEN and JENNE. 45. For instance, the Litigation Team relentlessly and knowingly pursued flight data and passenger manifests regarding flights EPSTEIN took with other famous individuals knowing full well that no underage women were onboard where 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. 46. 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 transportation of flights on any of EPSTEIN'S planes. 47. However, EDWARDS did ask many inflammatory and leading 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 depositions to sell the cases (or a part of them) to third parties. EDWARDS' office notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal defense attorneys); (iii)Bill Clinton (Former President of the Untied States); EFTA00587927 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 15 (iv)Tommy Mottola (former President of Sony Record); and (v) David Copperfield (illusionist). 48. The above-named individuals were friends of EPSTEIN with whom he had done business relative to philanthropic work over the years. None of the above-named individuals had any connection with any of the Litigation Team's clients, E.W., L.M. or Jane Doe. 49. 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) Tommy Mottola (American Music Executive); (ii) Mortimer Zuckerman (well known Publisher of U.S. News & World Report and commentator and financier); (iii)Bill Richardson (Governor of New Mexico, formerly U.S. Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations); and (iv)Any and all persons having knowledge of EPSTEIN'S charitable, political or other donations;2 50. The sole purpose was, again, to "pump" the cases to investors. There is no evidence to date that any of these individuals have any personal knowledge regarding the Civil Actions. 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. EFTA00587928 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 51. As part of this scheme, ROTHSTEIN and ROTHSTEIN'S Litigation Team, individually and in a concerted effort, may have unethically and illegally: a. Sold, allowed to be sold and/or assisted with the sale of an interest in non- settled personal injury lawsuits (which are non-assignable and non- transferable) or sold non-existent structured 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 state or federal laws and Bar rules; and e. Utilized the judicial process including, but not limited to, unreasonable and unnecessary discovery, for the sole purpose of furthering the Ponzi scheme. 52. Any such actions by ROTHSTEIN, others and the Litigation Team would potentially be a violation of various Florida Bar Rules, including prohibiting the improper sharing of fees or costs and various conflicts of issues rules. 53. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team in the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN may have compromised their clients' interests. ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team would be unable to give unbiased legal counsel because an outside investor(s) had been promised a financial interest in the outcome of the action. As an example, if a plaintiff is receiving payments EFTA00587929 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 17 from investment monies while her action is ongoing, this clearly impacts the plaintiffs decision of whether or not to settle the current litigation against EPSTEIN. As a result of the ongoing scheme, the plaintiffs in the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN may have been motivated to commit perjury or shade their testimony to gain the greatest return on the investment and to further promote the Ponzi Scheme. L.M. gave a sworn statement to two FBI agents and an Assistant United States Attorney on April 24, 2007 before she had hired Edwards and RRA. L.M. had a different attorney at the time she gave her sworn testimony. In April of 2007, she testified: A girlfriend introduced her to Epstein; she was told that he likes topless massages "but you don't have to do anything you don't want to do." p. 7; She was also told that "Jeffrey doesn't want any underage girls so make sure you tell him you're 18". p. 8; L.M. admits that she willingly took off her top the first time, p. 9., and at a later time took off all of her clothes, voluntarily. She admits that he said "But you don't have to do anything that you don't feel comfortable with." p. 10; Throughout the statement, she denies any force or coercion and specifically states that he never pulled her close to him in a sexual way, p. 21. As to the other girls that were brought, including C.W., L.M. said that some of the girls were topless, and some were not and Epstein didn't mind, p. 23; she admits having brought approximately 30 plus girls to Epstein; she admits that C.W. was her baby's father's girlfriend at the time that she met her. She testified that "None of my girls ever had a problem and they call me. They'd beg me, you know, for us to go to Jeffrey's house because they love Jeffrey. Jeffrey is a respectful man." p. 31; L.M. testified that when she was seeing Jeffrey, she had a boyfriend who knew she was going to EFTA00587930 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 18 Epstein's home but he didn't care, his position (as was hers) was "bring home the bacon." She told all of the girls that she asked to come that they were going to give a topless massage. p. 44. "Every girl that I brought to Jeffrey, they said they were fine with it and like, for instance, C.W., a lot of girls begged me to bring them back." p. 45. Yet, when L.M. was deposed in her case (now represented by Edwards and RRA); she testified quite contrary to her sworn FBI statement: She has worked as an escort/call girl performing sexual favors for men since age 13 (she then asserted her 5l" Amendment privilege against self incrimination) making $200 - $2,000 a day; she has filmed herself in a sex tape; now that she knows she may be able to collect money from Epstein, she now claims she lied to the FBI and that Epstein is "a sick motherfucker." 54. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may have knowingly have compromised their alleged interests in the Civil Actions. 55. ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, VILLEGAS, BARNETT, FISTEN, JENNE, L.M. and the Litigation Team knowingly and with the intent and ulterior improper motive to extort excessive monies from EPSTEIN, and ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team have pursued the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN in an effort to gain as much as a financial gain as possible in order to attempt to continue the fraudulent and illegal investment and/or Ponzi scheme. 56. In furtherance of their illegal and fraudulent scheme against EPSTEIN, ROTHSTEIN, the Litigation Team and, at times, L.M. in the Civil Action against EPSTEIN: EFTA00587931 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 19 a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Made Jane Doe available for TV media interviews without any legitimate legal purpose other than to "pump" the federal case for potential investors. c) Conducted and attempted to conduct completely irrelevant discovery unrelated to the claims in or subject matter of the Civil Actions for the purpose of harassing and embarrassing witnesses and EPSTEIN and causing 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. d) After EDWARDS was recruited and joined RRA in the spring of 2009, the tone and tenor of rhetoric directed to cases against EPSTEIN used by attorneys 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 (Mike to check this and transcript): "What the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as far as our investigation and EFTA00587932 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 20 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 people working underneath him that he is paying well to schedule these appointments, to locate these girls." See July 31, 2009 Transcripts, p. 6, lines 18- 25, p. 7, lines 1 - 8. " . . . The age group begins as young as 12 years old and as old as 16 years old." p. 7, lines 19-20 See Composite Exhibit 3 hereto. e) As an example, EDWARDS filed an unsupportable and legally deficient Motion for Injunction Restraining Fraudulent Transfer of Assets, Appointment of a Receiver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/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 "Plaintiffs motion entirely devoid of evidence . . . ", and denied the motion in toto. EFTA00587933 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 21 f) 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 $500 million, separate and apart from his legal fees. g) ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team knew or should have known that these three (3) filed cases were weak and had minimal value for the following reasons: (i) (H) L.M. — admittedly lied to the FBI and Assistant U.S. attorney in a sworn testimony; worked at numerous strip clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girl; has a history of substantial illegal drug use; and asserted the 5° Amendment extremely during her depositions in order to avoid answering relevant questions. E.W. — worked at eleven (11) separate strip clubs, including Cheetah (7°) 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. EFTA00587934 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 22 (iii) Jane Doe (federal case) seeks $50 million from Epstein. She and her attorneys claim severe emotional distress as a result of admitted Jane Doe voluntary going to Epstein's home. She admits that there was never oral, and or sexual intercourse; nor did she ever touch his genitalia. Yet, Jane Doe suffered extreme emotional distress well prior to meeting Epstein as a result of having witnessed her father murder his girlfriend's son. Jane Doe worked at two different strip clubs, including Platinum Showgirls in Boynton Beach. h) Conducted ridiculous and irrelevant discovery such as subpoenaing records from an alleged sex therapist, Dr. Leonard Bard in Massachusetts; when the alleged police report reflected that EPSTEIN had only seen a chiropractor in Palm Beach named Dr. Baird. Obviously, no records 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; i) 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 EFTA00587935 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 23 intercourse with EPSTEIN and she had never touched his genitalia. j) 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. Why? Again, to prime the investment "pump" with new money without any relevance to the existing claims made by the RRA clients. 57. The actions described in paragraph 57 (for now pike to check later) 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 claims against EPSTEIN to potential investors. 58. ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, VILLEGAS, BARNETT, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team's actions constitute a fraud upon EPSTEIN as RRA, ROTHSTEIN and the Litigation Team represented themselves to be acting in good faith and with the bests interests of their clients in mind at all times when in reality, they were acting in furtherance of the investment or Ponzi scheme described herein. EPSTEIN justifiably relied to his detriment on the representations of RRA, and Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, ADLER, BERGER, and EDWARDS, in how he conducted and defended the Civil Actions brought against him. EFTA00587936 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 24 59. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent and illegal investment or Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team and as a result of the litigation tactics undertaken by them, Plaintiff EPSTEIN has incurred and continues to incur the following monetary damages including, but not limited to, having to pay an amount in excess of the Civil Actions' true value as a result of them refusing to settle because a percentage of any payment by EPSTEIN may have been promised to third party investors; incurring significant additional fees and costs as result of Defendants refusal to conduct settlement negotiations in a forthright and good faith manner because any monies paid by EPSTEIN is in reality a promised return on an investment; and incurred significant attorneys' fees and costs in defending the discovery that was not relevant, material and/or calculated to lead to the admissibility of evidence, but was done for the sole purpose of "pumping" the cases to investors. 60. EPSTEIN has also been injured in that the scope of the fraudulent and criminal or racketeering activity so permeated the RRA law firm that EPSTEIN has been prevented from fully and fairly defending the civil actions brought against him. In essence, the very existence of RRA was based on the continuation of the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team. In order to continue to bring in monies from investors, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team used the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, along with other manufactured lawsuits, as a means of luring investors. EFTA00587937 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 25 61. ROTHSTEIN, BODEN, VILLEGAS, BARNETT, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team are liable for damages caused to EPSTEIN — individually, and jointly and severally. Count I — Violation of §§772.101, et seq., Fla. Stat. - Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act — Against All Defendants 62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through as if fully set forth herein. 63. RRA, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M. each and collectively constitute an enterprise pursuant to §772.102(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). 64. ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M. engaged in a pattern of criminal activity as defined in §772.102(3) and (4), Fla. Stat. (2009). 65. As alleged herein, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN and JENNE and the Litigation Team committed multiple predicate acts in violation of §772.103(1), (2), (3) and (4), Fla. Stat., including violations of Florida Statutes - Chapter 517, relating to securities transactions; Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud generally (which includes L.M.); Chapter 831, relating to forgery; §836.05, relating to extortion (which includes L.M.); and Chapter 837, relating to perjury (which includes L.M.). Substantially more than two predicate acts (i.e., the selling of or participation of the sale of fabricated settlements outlined herein, including the Civil Actions involving Epstein) occurred within a five-year time period. 66. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. EFTA00587938 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 26 67. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to threefold of his actual damages sustained, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, and such other damages as allowed by law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all the named Defendants. Count II - Florida RICO - "Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act" Pursuant to §§895.01, et seq., Fla. Stat. (2009), Against All Defendants 68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through as if fully set forth herein. 69. RRA, along with ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M., each and collectively, constitute an enterprise pursuant to §895.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2009). 70. During all times relevant hereto, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M. were and are associated with the enterprise, RRA, and each other. 71. Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M., as persons associated with the enterprise, RRA and each other (as an enterprise), unlawfully conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in such an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, § 895.03(3), Fla. Stat., as alleged above herein. 72. The breadth and scope of ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and, potentially, L.M.'s racketeering activity continues to be investigated by the FBI, as numerous civil lawsuits against some of the Defendants and others continue to be filed by persons who have been damaged. As of the drafting of this Complaint, criminal chargers against the Defendants have yet to be formally brought. EFTA00587939 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 27 73. Substantially more than two predicate acts (i.e., the selling of fabricated settlements outlined herein, including the Civil Actions involving Epstein) occurred within a five year time period. 74. Pursuant to §895.02, Fla. Stat., ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team engaged in a pattern of "racketeering activity" through the commission of crimes as defined in § 895.02(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat., including Chapter 517, relating to securities; Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, and fraud (including L.M.) generally; Chapter 813, relating to forgery; §836.05, relating to extortion (including L.M.); Chapter 837, relating to perjury (including L.M.). 75. Pursuant to §895.05, Fla. Stat., Plaintiff seeks the following relief against Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M.: a) Ordering ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and the Litigation Team to divest themselves of any interest in the enterprise, RRA; b) Enjoin all Defendants from engaging in the same type of conduct and activities as described herein; and c) Temporarily enjoining ROTHSTEIN, the Litigation Team and L.M., from the continuation of the Civil Actions brought against EPSTEIN until criminal charges have been formally brought against RRA and/or any of the Defendants, such that EPSTEIN may be allowed to evaluate whether a stay or dismissal of the Civil Actions against him is merited. EFTA00587940 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 28 76. EPSTEIN further seeks an award of his reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief that this Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for the relief sought and damages against the named Defendants. Count Ill - Abuse of Process — Against All Defendants 77. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through as if fully set forth herein. 78. After instituting the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN, the actions of Defendants, ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M. as alleged in paragraphs through herein, constitute an illegal, improper or perverted use of process. 79. ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M. possessed ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process. 80. As a result of ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, the Litigation Team and L.M.'s actions, EPSTEIN suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all the named Defendants. Count IV — Fraud Against All Defendants 81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through as if fully set forth herein. 82. ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT, FISTEN, JENNE and L.M. by and through Defendants EDWARDS, BERGER and ADLER, made false statements of fact to EFTA00587941 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 29 EPSTEIN and his attorneys and agents, known to be false at the time made, and/or intentionally concealed material information from EPSTEIN and his attorneys and agents, for the purpose of inducing EPSTEIN to act in reliance thereon. 83. EPSTEIN did so act on the misrepresentation and/or concealment by incurring additional attorney's fees, costs, and expenses in attempting to defend the civil actions against him to the fullest of his abilities under the circumstances. In reality, because the Civil Actions against Plaintiff were being exploited and over-valued so as to lure additional investors, EPSTEIN has yet to be given a good faith opportunity for settlement and to attempt to extort as much money as possible from EPSTEIN to continue the massive fraud. WHEREFORE Plaintiff EPSTEIN demands judgment against Defendants for damages incurred and for any other relief to which he is entitled under the law. Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against All Defendants 84. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through as if fully set forth herein. 85. ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE and L.M. and the Litigation Team conspired to commit a fraud upon EPSTEIN. 86. ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, L.M. and the Litigation Team combined by and through concerted action as detailed herein to accomplish an unlawful purpose or accomplish some purpose by unlawful means. The unlawful purpose was, among other things, the orchestrating and continuation of the massive fraudulent Ponzi scheme and receipt of monies for the continuation of the scheme. The unlawful means includes, but EFTA00587942 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 30 is not limited to, the use of the Civil Actions against EPSTEIN in an unlawful, improper, and fraudulent manner. 87. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, FISTEN, JENNE, L.M. and the Litigation Team's conspiracy to defraud EPSTEIN, EPSTEIN suffered damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff EPSTEIN demands judgment against Defendants for damages incurred and for any other relief to which he is entitled under the law. Jury Trial Plaintiff demands Jury Trial on all issues so triable. By: ROBERT D. CRITTON JR., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 (Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00587943