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

n behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed the use of the Epstein Cases (i.e., the cases being litigated against me by Edwards) to defraud investors in the Ponzi 7 EFTA00808211 Scheme; including, but not limited to,

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

n behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed the use of the Epstein Cases (i.e., the cases being litigated against me by Edwards) to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme; including, but not limited to, improper discovery

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

ting against Epstein (the "Epstein Cases").4 It was specifically alleged in the Razorback Complaint that such fraudulent discovery and pleadings in the Epstein Cases were being used at RRA to overinflate the monetary value of the Epstein Cases and legitimize false claims to potential investors that Epstein was w