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

trate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised the money. He would use ... cases as bait for luring investors into

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

trate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised the money. He would use ... cases as bait for luring investors into

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

trate for probable cause: "Ft. Lauderdale attorney William Scherer represents multiple Rothstein related investors. He indicated in an article that RRA/Rothstein had used "the Epstein ploy ... as a showpiece as bait. That's the way he raised the money. He would use ... cases as bait for luring investors into