Epstein Secrets

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 pertained to his

ated against me by Edwards, including Edwards noticing the depositions of famous dignitaries and celebrities such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection whatsoever to any claims of misconduct made by Edwards's clients. Equally consistent with the allegations in t

ies such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection whatsoever t

rocess 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 of process

when the cases were not being prosecuted by RRA, may not have even exceeded $25,000. (Ex. 2 at 6; R. 813-14). -14- EFTA00612496 Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection whatsoever to any claims of misconduct made by Edwards's clients. Equally consistent with the allegations in t

-14). -14- EFTA00612496 Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection whatsoever t

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 pertained to his

travel was alleged by Edwards's clients, and noticing the depositions of famous dignitaries and celebrities, such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who were not alleged to have had any connection whatsoever to any specific claims of misconduct against the plaintiffs in the Epstein Cases. See le

es, such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who were not alleged to have had any connection

10 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: Defendant's Exhibit 4 83 il LAURA A. MENNINGER, Esquire 0 (Palm Beach County Sheriff's Reports - | Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Case Number 02075321) 12 oe Fas ae 03 Defendant's Exhibit 5 134 enver Lolorade 2 (Royal Palm Beach Police Reports) ! Li 303-831-7364 3 Defendan

hool she referred to was a high school? A. Yes. Q. And what happened at that dinner, if anything? A. He did some magic tricks. Q. Did you observe David Copperfield to be a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? A. Yes. Q. Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey's involvement with young girls with you? A. He questioned me

t that dinner, if anything? A. He did some magic tricks. Q. Did you observe David Copperfield to be a friend of Jeffrey Epstein's? A. Yes. Q. Did Copperfield ever discuss Jeffrey's involvement with young girls with you? A. He questioned me if I was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls.

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 pertained to his

on Epstein's private plane, and Edwards, himself, did in fact notice the depositions of famous dignitaries and celebrities such as Bill Clinton and David Copperfield, even though the claims of Edwards' clients in the Epstein Cases allegedly involved exclusively local conduct in Epstein's home in Palm Beach County

s and celebrities such as Bill Clinton and David Copperfield, even though the claims of Edwards' clients in th