Epstein Secrets

with the transcript can be understood for not remembering. But Epstein moved for summary judgment on three grounds: litigation privilege that the Wolfe case compelled with, and also that we were unable to prove two elements of the malicious prosecution claim. One of them was lack of probable caus

currently serving that sentence. Mr. Epstein also became aware during that time that news reports that Rothstein had been disbarred and that the Florida Bar was investigating at least half of the attorneys employed by RRA in connection with Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00788142

20 21 22 23 24 25 that the unnamed conspirators of Mr. Rothstein were people who worked with Mr. Rothstein, they were being investigated by the Florida Bar as well as by the federal government. There was testimony given that these investors and these -- and there are citations to all this testimony i

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

licious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state. 25

s written order granting summary judgment in favor of Epstein upon application of the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it pertai

in Cases")4 that were being used to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme.5 [Cite Epstein Affidavit]. News outlets also reported at that time that the Florida Bar had begun actively investigating dozens of attorneys employed by RRA in connection with the Ponzi Scheme. [Cite Epstein Affidavit]; Miami Herald, S

the Court heard argument solely as to the litigation privilege. 2 EFTA00808206 the litigation privilege based upon the then binding precedent of Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Final judgment was thereafter entered in favor of Epstein. Edwards appealed the judgment as it perta

ns of dollars and to fund the RRA Ponzi Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t

Haddad, Tonja 8/26/2013 For Educational Use Only Wolfe v. Foreman, — So.3d — (2013) 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 2013 WL 3724763 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS N

PHERD, C.J., specially concurring. The only remarkable thing about this case is its existence. As the managing attorney of the Miami office of The Florida Bar explained to Mr. Wolfe (himself a licensed Florida attorney), when he refused to accept staff counsel's initial rejection of his Bar complaint agai

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

ons of dollars and to fund the RRA Pont Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t

n the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone els for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Fe/d & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own crimina

25 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 nsor & Associates Reportiny and lranscrirrix, inc Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't don't tell me w

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

licious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state. 25

e foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own crimina

5 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM ent 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 74 of 100 sor & Associates [tenoning and Inniscrivinn. Inc. Page 48 1 Florida Bar? 2 A. I did not select him. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. My father. 5 Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Herman? 6 A. Once. 7 Q. Don't -- don't tell me

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

nformed about subsequent developments in Rothstein’s prosecution. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit | 92. Jeffrey Epstein filed a-complaint with the Florida Bar against Bradley Edwards, Esa, raising allegations that Edwards and others were involved in the wrongdoing of Scott Rothstein. After investigating the