Allegations linking attorney Edwards and Scott Rothstein to alleged Epstein Ponzi scheme in civil litigation

represented them in a civil action against Epstein. Nothing in Edwards’s capable and competent representation of his clients can serve as the basis for a civil lawsuit against him. Allegations about Edwards’s participation in or knowledge of the use of the civil actions against Epstein in a “Ponzi Scheme” are not supported by any competent evidence and could never be supported by competent evidence as they are entirely false. : A. Epstein’s Complaint Epstein’s Second Amended Complaint essentially alleges that Epstein was damaged by Edwards, acting in concert with Scott Rothstein (President of the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law fit (“RRA”) where Edwards worked for a short period of time). Epstein appears to allege that pabanie joined Rothstein in the abusive prosecution of sexual assault cases against Epstein to “pump” the cases to Ponzi scheme investors. As described by Epstein, investor victims were told by Rothstein that three minor girls who were sexually assaulted by Epstein: L.M., E.W., and I ane Doe were to be paid up-front money to prevent those girls from settling their civil cases against Epstein. In Epstein’s view, these child sexual assault cases had “minimal value” (Complaint & 42(h)), and Edwards’s refusal to force his clients to accept modest settlement offers is claimed to breach some duty that Edwards owed to Epstein. Interestingly, Epstein never states that he actually made any settlement offers. : The supposed “proof” of the Complaint’s allegations against Edwards includes Edwards’s alleged contacts with the media, his attempts to obtain discovery from high-profile persons with whom Epstein socialized, and use of “ridiculously inflammatory” language in arguments in court. Remarkably, Epstein has filed such allegations against Edwards despite the fact that Epstein had sexually abused each of Edwards’s clients and others while they were HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013371