Qtask, Inc.: The Ponzi Firm's Document Platform and the Epstein Case Files

How a Tech Startup Funded by Rothstein's Law Firm Stored Epstein-Related Files, Stonewalled the Bankruptcy Trustee for Two Years — and Drew Epstein Into a Direct Effort to Identify and Recover Qtask Records

Executive Summary

Qtask, Inc. was a web-based project-centric collaboration platform co-founded by Reichart "Baron RK" Von Wolfsheild and funded with $7.5 million from Scott Rothstein's law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (RRA) — money derived from Rothstein's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme. Inside RRA, Qtask served as a "secure" internal channel for communications Rothstein didn't want on the firm's regular servers. Brad Edwards — the attorney representing Epstein's victims — stored his Epstein case files on Qtask. Scott Rothstein was specifically invited into those files and, according to Epstein's own intelligence briefings to his attorney, it was the only case Rothstein asked to follow on Qtask — a claim sourced from what Epstein says Edwards's assistant Beth Williamson told him.

When the bankruptcy trustee subpoenaed Qtask's records in December 2009, Qtask refused. The firm was held in contempt, fined $5,000/day, and threatened with incarceration. An expert report documented not just stonewalling but active counter-measures: Qtask was monitoring the trustee's own investigation in real time, withholding "shadowbox" passwords, and blocking access at every turn. The trustee later moved to increase fines to $25,000/day.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein was running his own operation: in January 2011, he asked Von Wolfsheild how to sign into Qtask and try it himself. In May 2011, Von Wolfsheild alerted Epstein that the trustee's lawyers "want the projects in Qtask regarding YOU" — and Epstein responded the same day by offering Von Wolfsheild use of his New York guest apartments. By July 2011, Epstein was briefing his own lawyer William Scherer with detailed counter-intelligence: that Edwards had misspelled Epstein's name as "Espstein" when filing to avoid PACER detection, that Beth Williamson (Edwards's assistant) had confirmed "the only case Rothstein followed on Qtask was the Epstein cases," and that Epstein intended to call Williamson as a witness.

What the Qtask data contained — internal RRA communications about the Ponzi scheme, information about Epstein's victims, and the record of who knew what — has never been publicly disclosed. Von Wolfsheild eventually settled with the trustee, but what was actually produced in that settlement, and what was withheld or lost during the two-year non-compliance period, is not established in available public records.

Background: Qtask and the Rothstein Firm

What Qtask Was

Qtask was a project-centric, invitation-only web-based platform for secure group communication and document management. Each project was a siloed workspace — only invited members could see the content. Russell Adler, an RRA partner, described himself as the architect who brought Qtask into the firm. Scott Rothstein became a personal investor around 2007, as did others associated with RRA.

Rothstein preferred Qtask for internal communications about sensitive matters specifically because RRA's own servers were "less than secure" — he directed partners to use Qtask for Ponzi-related communications.

Sources: EFTA00608537; EFTA01082728; EFTA02769191

Rothstein's Investment — Ponzi Money

When Rothstein's scheme collapsed in October 2009, his equity interest in Qtask was listed in his federal criminal indictment as a business asset subject to forfeiture — item BI2 in Schedule B. The same item appears across more than a dozen forfeiture, civil, and criminal documents.

"Scott W. Rothstein's equity interest in QTask"

Sources: EFTA00193199 (Federal criminal information, Case 0:09-cr-60331-JIC, Dec. 1, 2009, p. 27); EFTA00223265; EFTA00596488; EFTA00729404

In his June 2012 deposition, Rothstein explained how he was sold on the investment:

"The way I was sold Qtask by the two main partners there, Mr. — what's his name Wolfgang, Von Wolfgang, Von Wolfsheild."

Q: "Reichart Von Wolfsheild?"

A: "I was pretty close. And Russell Mix. And then the way I was sold it by two people from my firm, Russell Adler and Rob Buschel, was that this was groundbreaking technology, that it would eventually be worth a fortune, and hence my decision to invest in it."

Source: EFTA01082728 (Scott Rothstein Rule 2004 Examination, June 4, 2012, Page 29)

The Epstein Files Inside Qtask

Brad Edwards Confirms "An Epstein Project"

When Brad Edwards joined RRA in approximately April 2009, he brought his Epstein case files with him. The firm was nominally paperless, using Fortis for document imaging — but Edwards maintained his Epstein client files in Qtask. At his deposition on March 23, 2010 in Epstein v. Rothstein (Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG), Edwards confirmed this explicitly:

• He confirmed he put information about his Epstein clients into Qtask
• He refused to specify what, citing work-product privilege
• He confirmed "There was an Epstein project" in Qtask
• He said he invited people into the project but refused to identify them
• He said he did not believe he invited Scott Rothstein
• He said he did not invite Ken Jenne
• He stated no outside-RRA person accessed his Epstein Qtask file

Edwards testified under oath that he had three Epstein-related clients at RRA. Epstein later disputed this in a motion to compel a second deposition, citing new information:

"despite Edwards deposition testimony, Epstein has now learned that Edwards had five (5) Epstein related cases, not three (3) as he testified."

The three cases Edwards acknowledged were Jane Doe, L.M., and E.W. — cases he had brought from his private practice ("Brad Edwards P.A.") to RRA, which Rothstein "feverishly marketed as part of his Ponzi scheme." The scope of the Epstein Qtask project — and what Rothstein could access — tracks directly with how many cases were actually there.

Sources: EFTA00599662; EFTA01089004; EFTA01100749; EFTA02775446; EFTA00728258 (motion to compel second Edwards deposition, "five (5) Epstein related cases")

Rothstein Was Specifically Invited Into the Epstein Cases

Edwards denied inviting Rothstein. Epstein disputed this in private correspondence with his own attorney. In a July 8, 2011 email to William Scherer, Epstein alleged:

"Scott was invited in by edwards on Qtask on the epstein cases. The only case scott asked to be included on."

And in a December 10, 2011 brief to Scherer, Epstein relayed what he claimed Edwards's assistant Beth Williamson had told him:

"beth williamson, brads asst said that the only case rothstein followed on Qtask ws the epstein cases"

These are Epstein's allegations in private correspondence with his attorney — not sworn testimony or independently confirmed statements from Williamson.

Sources: EFTA01858073 (Epstein to Scherer, July 8, 2011); EFTA01845805; EFTA00925741 (Epstein to Scherer, Dec. 10, 2011)

Attorney Scherer confirmed the same to the court:

"when we look at Qtask, there's going to be a boatload more"

Sources: EFTA00213917; EFTA00206624

The Ponzi Mechanism: Epstein's Victims as Investment Instruments

Rothstein used the real Epstein civil litigation — specifically the L.M. case — as the vehicle for his Ponzi scheme, selling fake settlement investments to outside investors. Attorney Scherer, representing victim creditors, told the court in August 2010:

"In November we filed a lawsuit in State Court and we alleged that as a part of Mr. Rothstein and the firm, and the firm's employees, and maybe some of the firm's attorneys, conspired to use the Epstein/LM litigation in order to lure $13.5 million worth of my victims, my clients, into making investments in these phoney settlements."

Qtask held the internal communications about this arrangement — who knew what, who directed what, who was kept informed. That is why the Epstein case files in Qtask were so valuable to both the trustee and to Epstein himself.

Sources: EFTA00213917; EFTA00206624

The Discovery Battle: Two Years of Contempt

Timeline of the Trustee's Subpoena Fight

December 8, 2009: Trustee Herbert Stettin serves subpoena on Qtask (D.E. 95).

March 8, 2010: Court issues Order to Compel (D.E. 411). Qtask ignores it.

~October 2010: Bankruptcy court enters Order of Contempt (D.E. 776) against Qtask. Court imposes $5,000/day sanction for continued non-compliance.

December 13/17, 2010: Expert Robert Moody submits his report (D.E. 1241) documenting the full scope of Qtask's obstruction (see below).

December 29, 2010: Trustee files Motion to Fix and Compel Payment (D.E. 1270) requesting: (1) liquidate accrued attorneys fees already exceeding $100,000; (2) increase daily fine from $5,000 to $25,000; (3) immediate incarceration of Qtask officers; (4) appointment of Moody as standing monitor; (5) leave to pursue attorney Buschel personally.

March 7, 2011: Court enters Final Judgment against Qtask (D.E. 1529) for sanctions.

March 22, 2011: Trustee moves to hold Von Wolfsheild jointly and severally liable for all Qtask sanctions (D.E. 1558).

Source: EFTA02769191; EFTA00621390

What the Expert Found: Active Obstruction

Expert Robert Moody's December 2010 report (D.E. 1241) documented not passive delay but active counter-measures. The Trustee's motion (D.E. 1270) summarizing his findings states:

• Initial Qtask productions were described as "CD/DVDs containing what essentially exists as the computer data version of a run-on sentence. The initial production consisted of a lot of computer code and data but no format or structure"
• "Shadowbox" passwords had not been reset: "Access to the 'shadowbox' has been blocked. The Trustee still does not have the passwords associated with the individual user accounts."
• Qtask was actively monitoring the Trustee's investigation: "Qtask is monitoring the Trustee's investigation. Through interviews, Qtask has acknowledged that it knows what and when the Trustee has accessed"
• Qtask claimed to be a "gatekeeper" over its clients' data, refusing to produce it without their consent
• Qtask had effectively stopped attempting to comply, calling the requests "too burdensome"

The term "shadowbox" appears in the expert report and the trustee's motion; its precise technical meaning within the Qtask platform is the editors' interpretation based on context, not a definition provided in the filings.

Source: EFTA02769191 (Motion to Fix and Compel, citing D.E. 1241)

Von Wolfsheild Takes Personal Responsibility — Then Fights It

On June 7, 2010, Von Wolfsheild filed an affidavit stating:

"I accept full and all responsibility for the decisions made on behalf of Qtask, Inc., regarding the disclosure of data stored on the Qtask service in response to the subpoena."

The Trustee used this affidavit to justify the March 2011 motion holding him jointly and severally liable — because Von Wolfsheild, as Qtask's "Chief Information Technology Officer," had personally vouched for Qtask's compliance decisions:

"TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO HOLD BARON RK VON WOLFSHEILD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST QTASK, INC."

By April 2011, Von Wolfsheild was fighting this on five simultaneous legal fronts.

Source: EFTA00621390 (Case 09-34791-RBR, Doc 1558, Filed 03/22/11)

Epstein's Effort to Identify and Recover Qtask Records

January 2011: Epstein Tries to Access Qtask

According to Brad Edwards's 2020 memoir Relentless Pursuit, Epstein invited Von Wolfsheild to his Mindshift conference on Little St. James Island in January 2011 — and there asked him directly to help access Edwards's Qtask datastore. Von Wolfsheild refused and subsequently reported the approach to Edwards. Edwards later wrote: "It would have been a smart move had it worked, but it didn't. Reichart couldn't be bought by the bad guys."

Against this backdrop, on January 15, 2011, Epstein emailed Von Wolfsheild: "how do i try qtask, is there a tutorial?" Two days later they exchanged emails in which Von Wolfsheild pitched Qtask for Epstein's personal use, suggesting he invite "Susan's or someone you have organize stuff for your island."

The memoir account and the EFTA emails are consistent: Epstein was probing for access to the platform and its data. The memoir is a secondary source; readers should weigh it accordingly.

Sources: EFTA01835022 (Jan. 15, 2011); EFTA01793279; EFTA01791598; EFTA01792001 (Jan. 17, 2011)

Epstein's Subpoena Against the Trustee — to Access Qtask Data

In the parallel civil case (Epstein v. L.M., Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM), Epstein filed his own subpoena against the bankruptcy trustee demanding access to documents in the trustee's possession, specifically including Qtask data. The August 2010 court order appointing a Special Master records this:

"The Court appoints former Broward County Circuit Judge Robert Carney as Special Master who shall work with counsel for the Trustee to obtain documents responsive to the subpoena served upon the Trustee by Jeffrey Epstein to: (i) review all electronically stored information ('ESI') and other documents in the Trustee's possession, including Qtask data for purposes of determining the applicability of the attorney/client and work product privileges..."

Epstein agreed to pay all Special Master fees.

Sources: EFTA00206606; EFTA00213899; EFTA02769339 (D.E. 888, filed Aug. 13, 2010)

The May 18 Exchange: The Alert and the Apartments

On March 31, 2011, Epstein emailed Von Wolfsheild: "what are you up to?" Von Wolfsheild missed it due to an email filter change.

On April 28, 2011, Von Wolfsheild discovered and replied — listing his five active legal cases, including the $7.5 million adversary proceeding, the contempt sanctions, and the personal liability motion. Epstein replied warmly ("no problem, when are you next on the east coast?") and then, when Von Wolfsheild mentioned another Florida court date, simply: "again?"

Von Wolfsheild: "When ever there is a motion in front of the Judge that involves me directly, I try to be there in person. It seems to go better if I stand there... ridiculous as it is."

Then, on May 18, 2011, Von Wolfsheild sent the most significant disclosure:

"It is interesting, your name finally came up. Berger Singerman want the projects in Qtask regarding YOU."

He was flying back from Maui and about to start shooting a History Channel series. The trustee's lawyers — Berger Singerman — had specifically identified Epstein's Qtask projects as a target of their ongoing discovery.

Epstein replied the same day — approximately four hours later:

"I have guest apts in new york that you are welcome to use."

Von Wolfsheild accepted: "That is very cool of you to offer. Thank you :) I will tell you when I'm there, should you be in town then perhaps we can meet up again."

The documents establish the sequence — disclosure, then apartment offer, same day. The connection between the two is the reader's inference; the emails do not state a reason for the offer.

Sources:
- EFTA01778129 (March 31 email, replayed in April thread)
- EFTA00707937; EFTA00707944 (April 28 exchange)
- EFTA00909600; EFTA00909602 (Epstein replies)
- EFTA01863165 (Von Wolfsheild, May 18 — "they want the projects regarding YOU")
- EFTA01863573; EFTA00878711 (Epstein — "guest apts")
- EFTA01863470 (Von Wolfsheild acceptance)

July 2011: Epstein Asks Von Wolfsheild to Find the Rothstein Files

On July 6, 2011, Epstein emailed Von Wolfsheild directly:

"i need my q task stuff from rothsteinn, profile, beth williamson."

Source: EFTA01776463; EFTA00914730 (July 6, 2011)

On July 12, 2011, Epstein pushed further:

"i know that scott was invited into all my cases. and he asked that he be kept up on them. what can i do to get hold of the info"

Sources: EFTA01862081; EFTA00914732 (July 12, 2011)

Von Wolfsheild replied on July 13, 2011:

"I can tell you now that there is nothing I have access to of Beth's. And Scott barely used Qtask in the first place (he knew it tracked everything). If I were to assume, Beth would not have stored anything back then in Qtask because it was something new to them back then."

When Epstein pressed again, Von Wolfsheild replied:

"That is possible. I don't see those. I was under the impression that BS [Berger Singerman] now has this info though. Please, ATTACK THEM. They are a-holes."

Sources: EFTA01862008; EFTA01776463; EFTA01862117 (July 13, 2011)

July–December 2011: Epstein Briefs Scherer With Counter-Intelligence

In parallel, Epstein was feeding detailed investigative intelligence to his own attorney, William R. Scherer. On July 8, 2011, Epstein's email to Scherer included his own account of events — presented here as Epstein's allegations, not independently confirmed facts:

• Rothstein "needed Edwards to file complaints to show to investors"
• Brad Edwards and David Jaffé filed a federal complaint on July 18 (234 pages) but "instruct beth williamson, not to serve me. they misspell Espstein. so that we would not find it on pacer" — Epstein's allegation that the misspelling was deliberate to avoid PACER detection
• Beth Williamson (Edwards's assistant) "should be interviewed by the USAO, she will with immunity get you your deep pocket"
• Scott Rothstein "was invited in by edwards on Qtask on the epstein cases. The only case scott asked to be included on" — Epstein's characterization, sourced (per his December briefing) from what Williamson told him

On December 10, 2011, Epstein sent Scherer another brief relaying Williamson's account: "beth williamson, brads asst said that the only case rothstein followed on Qtask ws the epstein cases." The email included investigative questions about Ken Jenne, Pat Roberts, property break-ins, the Alfredo Rodriguez matter, and strategies targeting Epstein's "high profile friends." Note: this is Epstein relaying what he claims Williamson told him — it is not a direct statement from Williamson.

Sources: EFTA01858073 (July 8, 2011, Epstein to Scherer); EFTA01845805; EFTA00925741 (Dec. 10, 2011, Epstein to Scherer)

The Personal Network: Von Wolfsheild in Epstein's Digital Life

The relationship between Epstein and Von Wolfsheild persisted long after the 2011 contempt battles.

Key Figures

Timeline

What Was and Was Not Produced

The contempt proceedings over Qtask data stretched from December 2009 through at least 2012, with Qtask appealing, seeking stays, and fighting at every stage. Von Wolfsheild ultimately entered settlement agreements with the trustee and handed over Qtask assets, per reporting on the RRA bankruptcy — but the scope of what the trustee actually received, and what was withheld during the two-year non-compliance period, is not fully established in available public records.

Von Wolfsheild's July 2011 message to Epstein — "I was under the impression that BS [Berger Singerman] now has this info though" — suggests that by that point some data had reached the trustee's lawyers. What was produced, what was withheld, and whether any material was lost or deleted in the interim remains unknown from the available record.

There is an additional complication: Berger Singerman was disqualified from the Qtask clawback suit by Judge Raymond Ray. The firm's IT director, Reinaldo "Rey" Leon, was formerly married to Rothstein's sister Ronni Leon — and it was Rey Leon who had pushed Rothstein to invest in Qtask in the first place. Rothstein had given the Leons approximately $337,503 in gifts (property taxes, cars, American Express bills, college tuition, Super Bowl trips). Judge Ray found that Leon could be both a clawback target and a witness in the Qtask proceedings, creating an impermissible conflict. Separately, firm partner Paul Singerman held investments in Gibraltar Bank, another clawback target. The firm pressing hardest for Qtask's data had a structural conflict with the very investment it was pursuing.

Source: Broward Palm Beach New Times, "Judge Bounces Berger Singerman from Rothstein Bankruptcy Suit"

The Epstein-related Qtask projects — the "Epstein project" Edwards confirmed existed, the internal RRA communications about using victim cases as Ponzi instruments, and the record of who knew what — were never publicly disclosed. Whether the trustee received them and kept them sealed, or whether they were never fully produced, has not been established from available sources.

Lines of Investigation

1. What did Berger Singerman actually receive? Were Epstein's Qtask projects ever fully produced, and if so, what did they contain?

2. Who was invited into "an Epstein project"? Edwards denied inviting Rothstein, but Epstein's own intelligence (from Williamson) contradicts this. Who else had access?

3. What does the Expert Moody report say in full? D.E. 1241 is referenced extensively but not fully reproduced in available corpus documents. The full text may contain more specific findings about the Epstein-related projects.

4. Beth Williamson as witness: Epstein twice identified Williamson as a critical witness. Was she ever interviewed by the USAO?

5. The PACER misspelling: Epstein claimed Edwards filed a 234-page federal complaint in July 2009 misspelling his name as "Espstein" to avoid PACER detection. This is a specific verifiable claim.

6. Did Epstein's own subpoena succeed? The Special Master process (D.E. 888, Aug. 2010) reviewing Qtask data on Epstein's behalf — what did the privilege log contain, and what was ultimately produced to Epstein?

7. Von Wolfsheild's "Prolific" platform: After settling with the trustee, Von Wolfsheild launched a functionally identical platform called "Prolific" (Prolific Publishing, Inc.) and the trustee accused him of diverting Qtask users and their data to it — prompting "Round 8" litigation. Von Wolfsheild's defense: "The users and the user data are not assets of Qtask and therefore could not be diverted." If users migrated their data to Prolific before the handover, the trustee may have received a shell. The full scope of what was ultimately transferred requires further investigation.

8. How many Epstein clients did Edwards have at RRA? Edwards testified to three (Jane Doe, L.M., E.W.). Epstein's motion to compel a second deposition alleged five — documented in EFTA00728258. The two additional cases are unidentified in available records. The scope of what Qtask held tracks directly with this number.

9. Scherer's dual role: conflict or asset? Scherer simultaneously represented Rothstein's investor-victims in the bankruptcy (and served on the Creditor's Committee) while receiving Epstein's private intelligence briefings as Epstein's civil attorney. These are not necessarily incompatible roles, but the full picture of what Scherer knew — and from which client — warrants examination.