Epstein Secrets

d 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 reasons t

tated that neither malicious prosecution nor 5 abuse of process would be barred by the litigation 6 privilege. 7 I have also cited the Cruz vs. Angelides, 8 the Middle District of -- I'm sorry, 9 574 So2d. 278, Second DCA 1991, which also 10 suggests that malicious prosecution would not be 11 b

d 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 those very r

tated that neither malicious prosecution nor 5 abuse of process would be barred by the litigation 6 privilege. 7 I have also cited the Cruz vs. Angelides, 8 the Middle District of -- I'm sorry, 9 574 Sold. 278, Second DCA 1991, which also 10 suggests that malicious prosecution would not be 11 b

ns preliminary to or during judicial proceedings, an abuse of process claim would never exist, nor would a claim for malicious prosecution”); Cruz v. Angelides, 574 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(“the law is well settled that a witness in a judicial proceeding,... is absolutely immune from any civil liability

ution claims against attorneys — against whom alternative remedies exist such as bar disciplinary proceedings. See Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.2d 642 (Idaho 2010). Moreover, in light of the decisions in Wright v. Yurko, supra and Olson v. Johnson, supra, the weight of authority supports the proposition th