Epstein Secrets

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

tigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereina

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

tigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware that the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a Complaint against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereina

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

]; Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN On November 20, 2009, the lawfirm of Conrad Scherer filed a complaint, Razorback cause in this case, is well established by his affidavit filed in support of his original summary judgment motion. [ci

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

2 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this Ponzi scheme. On November 20, 2009, the law firm of Conrad Scherer initiated a lawsuit against Rothstein and others entitled Razorback Funding, again, a copy of which is provided to the Court and is relied upon as

lege. 11 EFTA00583962 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

d before he was criminally charged last month with using the firm to run a $1.2 billion investment racket."). On November 20, 2009, the law firm of Conrad Scherer filed a complaint, Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Com