Epstein Secrets

are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606536 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 privilege. And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up with any other conclusion other than t

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court itself 2

9 NR. KING: That is the decision in -- bear 20 with me, Judge. 21 THE COURT: No problem. 22 MR. KING: That is the decision in Johnson 23 vs. Libow, a 2012 -- Westlaw 4068409 in 2012. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. KING: It is concise. It's to the www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606

rivilege. 12 But as I've indicated, the most cogent and 13 well articulated opinion on this subject is 14 Judge Sasser's opinion in Johnson vs. Libow. She 15 expressly revoked the arguments that are raised by 16 Wolfe, which arguments, of course, are opposed by 17 the assertion in Olson. The

ims are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 001237 EFTA00613534 28 1 privilege. 2 And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read 3 Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the 4 panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up 5 with any other conclusion oth

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 24 25 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court i

rivilege. 12 But as I've indicated, the most cogent and 13 well articulated opinion on this subject is 14 Judge Sasser's opinion in Johnson vs. Libow. She 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expressly revoked the arguments that are raised by Wolfe, which arguments, of course, are opposed

9 MR. KING: That is the decision in -- bear 20 with me, Judge. 21 THE COURT: No problem. 22 MR. KING: That is the decision in Johnson 23 vs. Libow, a 2012 -- Westlaw 4068409 in 2012. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. KING: It is concise. It's to the cogent, most well-reasoned, and rejects those p

a state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not

e perhaps malicious prosecution, for testimony or other sworn statements which he or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding.”); Johnson v. Libow, 2012 WL 4068409 (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. March 1, 2012)(the purpose of the litigation privilege does not preclude the tort of malicious prosecution). I