Epstein Secrets

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

against Scott Rothstein and others, Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. 9. Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed the

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

Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. 3 EFTA00799341 Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19) (hereinafter referenced as the "Razorback Complaint"), against Scott Rothstein and others detailing abusive litigation practices specifically in active RRA cases against Epstein (the "Epstein Cases")4

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

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 Complaint"), against Scott Rothstein and others alleging a fraudulent scheme perpetrated at RRA involving, among other deceptive practices, fraudulent conspir