Epstein Secrets

TA00606518 10 1 Appeals and, in fact, the Fourth District Court Of 2 Appeals. 3 THE COURT: One thing I wanted to interrupt 4 you on is this Wolfe case and its current status 5 and the -- I'll call the -- I'll call it the 6 Edwards side to make things be easier. But the 7 Edwards side has

scale (1) 50:11 Scarola (17) 2:18,20 4:19,20 4:24 5:4,12,16 5:22 6:3 7:5 9:10 22:13,24 37:19 46:11,20 scheme (1) 19:22 schemes (1) 18:16 Scherer (1) 19:6 SCI (3) 27:16,19 28:4 scope (1) 21:21 SCOTT (1) 1:7 se (2) 2:13 40:16 SEARCY (1) 2:18 seat (1) 3:4 second (3) 25:11 29:9 31:

use of process claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Bradley J. Edwards. The trial judge relied in part upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse

Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943 ("Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Pont scheme investors. Mr. Scherer asserted the following in the Razorback Complaint at pages 16-17 regarding the Epstein cases: In certain instances, the purported settlements, albe

le cause issue was one for the jury. However, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Epstein based on the litigation privilege, relying on Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Accordingly, Final Judgment was entered in favor of Epstein. 2 EFTA00613502 Edwards appealed the su

27:17 23:6 42:8 spectrum (1) 12 NI (2) schemes (1) set (5) sir (6) 54:11 1:24 62:18 18:16 6:15,16,18 5:12,18,22 6:9 split (3) RRA (2) Scherer (1) 37:25 54:21 21:1,9 3:13 46:15,19 37:11 44:3 19:6 sets (3) sitting (4) stage (3) RRA's (1) SCI (3) 25:21 37:21 43:8,9 52:10,11 35:10

ctions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of proc

ous prosecution is not barred by the litigation privilege — an implicit recognition acknowledged by the Third District itself — Epstein’s reliance on Wolfe is misplaced. Wo/fe is also factually distinguishable from Edwards’ claims against Epstein. Wolfe involved a malicious prosecution action against att

ase No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 12 of 15 reliance on public filings, including the Scherer Complaint against Rothstein is unavailing. As discussed above, the evidence warrants the finding that Epstein knew that Edwards was legitimately purs