Allegations of Manipulated Civil Actions Involving Epstein, Edwards, and Rothstein

*ERSON sed since Epstein’s case first Iled me,” said Krischer. “The in being pulled into that con- chief didn’t think the case was a cop and I’m a prosecutor.” torney’s office in 2009, is still a » Commission in Palm Beach 5 volunteered one morning a ymey and two mornings a week Ps Office. ld welfare issues, working with ren and Families. yernent with local law enforce- el Reiter in years. pstein filed suit, under Florida's in, the jailed Ponzi king; Bradley yrked, briefly, in Rothstein's law eral of Epstein’s victims, andone ~ al referred to in the lawsuit a5 © lief,” the suit stated, “EDWARDS % that ROTHSTEIN was utilizing 5 Ponzi scheme and/or were sellin: 5 mt in the Civil Actions (and other e suit also claimed that, “By 4S 6 _ Support Epstein’s claims and is completely and consistently cor- Firruy Ricw Civil Actions against EPSTEIN as ‘bait’ and fabricating settle- ments 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.” Moreover, the suit claimed, L.M. had “testified she never had sex with Epstein; worked at numerous strip clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girl; has a history of illegal drug use (pot, painkillers, Xanax, Ecstasy); and continually asserted the 5th Amendment during her depositions in order to avoid answering relevant but problem questions for her.” (The suit made similar claims about two other victims.) According to the suit, L.M. had said only good things about Epstein when interviewed by the FBI in 2007, while being represented by another lawyer. Her story “changed dramatically,” the suit claimed, once she was “in the hands of EDWARDS and RRA.” In a motion for summary judgment filed by Bradley Edwards, Edwards denied all of these allegations, calling Epstein’s claims frivolous for two separate reasons: On the one hand, Edwards claimed, Epstein was seeking damages from Edwards while asserting his own Fifth Amendment privilege to block the dis- covery of relevant facts. (And, in fact, Epstein did plead the Fifth, dozens of times, when deposed by the lawyers of his victims.) On the other hand, Epstein’s claims were “directly contradicted by all of the record evidence. “The truth in the record is entirely devoid of any evidence to _ toborative of Edwards's sworn assertion of innocence,” the motion HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022176