Epstein Secrets

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

31-CR-COHN; Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwards' Fourth Amended Counterclaim; depositions of Scott W Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LW, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943. R. 809, citing pleadings in LM v. Jeffrey Eps

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

egedly misused. See Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W. Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943(19). 5 EFTA00799343 July 22, 2009 from Ed

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

ly needed to keep the Ponzi Scheme from unraveling. [Cite Razorback and media reports]; Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court confirmed that there was no legitimate basis for filing Edwards' motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in