Epstein Secrets

ng more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at hand, properly applied and followed the decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). Accordingly, with no change in the law or facts since the Court's original ruling, and with Edw

fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should ne

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

Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeld: Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court rejected Edwards's Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-cv-80119. The connection between many of these

arria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), as well as reviewing the application and analysis of those cases in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013), correctly concluded that all actions occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, so l

in fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should no