Epstein Secrets

. vs. Henry, 839 So2d. 702 at Note 4, 18 Third DCA opinion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 24 25

OURT: Off the record for one second. 21 MR. KING: Yes. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. KING: And I cited the Taylor case, 24 which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision, which 25 discusses that issue and which shows that for www.phippereporting.com 888 811-3408 001241 EFTA00613538 32 1 tho

MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to 191

•• "THE COURT: This deals with the litigation privilege?" The attorney then goes on to say, "Yes, sir, it does deal with litigation privilege. Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege. Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

rotected by the litigation privilege. As unequivocally stated in the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and the Florida Supreme Court cases cited therein, Florida's litigation privilege provides to all persons involved in judicial proceedings an absolute privilege from civil liabil

ed directly to the litigation. Under well-established Florida Supreme Court precedent, the litigation privilege applies to all causes of action. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.

ct occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608. In Echevarria, the Court reiterated its broad application of privilege "applies in all causes of action, statutory as well as common law." Echevarria, 950 So. 2d

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 S

. vs. Henry, 839 So2d. 702 at Note 4, 18 Third DCA opinion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 recogn

OURT: Off the record for one second. 21 MR. KING: Yes. 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. RING: And I cited the Taylor case, 24 which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision, which 25 discusses that issue and which shows that for www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606540 32 1 those very

nger an issue either for purposes of 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and now this Wolfe case is not being disposed of 23 24 25 Wolfe, Levin, and Echevarria cases. this summary judgment. Pursuant -- THE COURT: Let me stop you, Mr. King, so that you're not confused by my preliminary statements to Mr. B

A: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation privilege which 14 dates

rotected by the litigation privilege. As unequivocally stated in the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), and the Florida Supreme Court cases cited therein, Florida's litigation privilege provides to all persons involved in judicial proceedings an absolute privilege from civil liabil

ct occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding . . . so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608. In Echevarria, the Court reiterated its broad application of privilege "applies in all causes of action, statutory as well as common law." Echevarria, 950 So. 2d

ed directly to the litigation. Under well-established Florida Supreme Court precedent, the litigation privilege applies to all causes of action. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.

ial judge said he really had no choice and had to follow this absolutely binding case-law. Of course the district courts of appeal are also bound by the Supreme Courts two decisions Levin and Echevarria. My approach would be to try and keep this brief relatively simple and to simply say that the Supreme Court has

vilege to a malicious prosecution case. Burlington has cited numerous cases in his Steinberg brief but he does not really cite or discuss Levin and Echevarria. The Wolf case which he is trying to reverse relies on Levin and Echevarria and Burlington does not really address them. The trial judge said he rea

has no choice. I would be happy to discuss it further and I think my job would be to remind the Fourth District that their decision got reversed in Echevarria. Let me know if you want to talk about it on the phone or what you want to do next. Sincerely, John Beranek 6/16/2014 EFTA00613878

SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301. 954.467.1223 EFTA00583042 that the Third District Court of Appeal committed error in Wolfe. The Florida Supreme Court, however, stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision of an appellate court. See System Compon

da Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe

King, anything that's being 10 alleged here that goes outside of the broad 11 spectrum that I have read into the record that has 12 its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the 13 Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? 14 MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. 15 Mr. Edwards' testimony, though, wa

recoveries against Epstein from various civil actions. Shortly before Epstein's complaint was filed, Edwards' partner, Rothstein, was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida, and charged by the United States Government with various federal crimes arising out of the scheme. Epstein eventually narrowed his claims

ss and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding precedent in this area of law." (R. 1203).2 Fi

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ. P. 1.510(c). This court, in applying the Florida Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCal

da Supreme Court binding precedent as espoused in Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe