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

ts with regards to the g issue whether the litigation privilege bars a 9 malicious prosecution claim. And I have cited to 10 the case Olson vs. Johnson, 961 Sold. 356, the 11 Second DCA's opinion in 2007, after both Levin and 12 Echevarria. And it holds that malicious 13 prosecution claims are

ts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present

at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and jury." 446 So. 2d at 1167. Here, both the aff

M v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson; deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23, line 4; p. 38, line 22. R. 809-10, citing amended complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rot

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

ts with regards to the 8 issue whether the litigation privilege bars a 9 malicious prosecution claim. And 2 have cited to 10 the case Olson vs. Johnson, 961 So2d. 356, the 11 Second DCA's opinion in 2007, after both Levin and 12 Echevarria. And it holds that malicious 13 prosecution claims are

2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). As Defendants point out, there muse be an "actionable underlying tort or wrong" for an actionable conspiracy claim. Wright, Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). 5 EFTA00234428 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18.2008 Page 6 of 11

ocument 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18:2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. I, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff Jane Doe moves the Court to reman