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

nd to which causes of 23 action the litigation privilege would apply. 24 The seminal case now for us, I guess, now 25 is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606520 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up to the Fl

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

ne how far and to which causes of action the litigation privilege would apply. The seminal case now for us, I guess, now is Levin. This was Levin, Mabie suing. It was www.phippareporting.com 888 811-3408 001221 EFTA00613518 12 1 actually a tortious interference case. But the 2 case went up t

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

ious behavior, suéh as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding, See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So, 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a ju