Scott W. Rothstein
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Edward Morse
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
020.pdf
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on June 16, 2010, in the case of L.M. v. Epstein. Epstein's lawyers argue the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint within the required 120 days (Rule 4(m)). Furthermore, the motion alleges that the complaint filed by L.M. (represented by Bradley Edwards) was used as a prop in Scott Rothstein's massive $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to lure investors with fabricated settlement agreements. The document cites depositions where L.M. contradicts allegations made in her complaint regarding sexual acts and travel.
020-01.pdf
This document contains a series of court orders and motions from the case *Morse v. Jan Jones International, Inc.* (Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM) in the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiffs, represented by Scott Rothstein, successfully argued that Jan Jones committed fraud and illegally moved funds to the Cayman Islands, resulting in an order for over $23 million in damages and the seizure of assets. The document includes a Stipulated Confidentiality Order and a subsequent Order on Emergency Writ of Mandamus from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the District Court's orders and mandated review by the Department of Treasury and FBI due to the sensitive nature of the government's investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013355.jpg
This document outlines facts regarding Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme at the law firm RRA. It specifically addresses allegations that Rothstein used cases against Jeffrey Epstein—handled by attorney Bradley J. Edwards—to lure investors. The text defends Edwards, stating he worked at RRA for less than a year, had no knowledge of the fraud, and never substantively discussed the Epstein cases with Rothstein.
Petitioners' Motion for Emergency Writ of Mandamus
Requesting higher court intervention to enforce previous orders.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity