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

nces to supporting documentation. (R. 808-818). Those facts, along with the references as footnotes, are recounted below. Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009.' During that time, his firm was a front for the largest Ponzi scheme in Florida's history,2 and RRA,

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

connection whatsoever to any specific claims of misconduct against the plaintiffs in the Epstein Cases. See letter dated 6 Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009, which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the Epstein cases were

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

ims of RRA's fraudulent scheme described in the Razorback Complaint received $170,000,000 to settle their claims. [Cite] 6 Edwards was a partner at Rothstein Rosenfeld Adler ("RRA") from April 2009 through November 2009, which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the fraudulent pleading