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

d to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. Prior to filing the initial Complaint in the Action, consistent with the allegations made by the press, in the Razorback Complaint, and in the Ro

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

d to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. Prior to filing the initial Complaint in the Action, consistent with the allegations made by the press, in the Razorback Complaint, and in the Ro

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

d to acquire larger and more elaborate office space and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. See Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. Scott Rothstein, Edwards's partne