Epstein Secrets

inexplicable about Wolfe, 6 is that it ignores its own prior precedent by 7 Judge Cope in his concurring decision in Boca 8 Investors Group vs. Potash, 835 So2d. 273. 9 THE COURT: That was a concurring opinion? 10 MR. KING: Yes, that was his concurring 11 opinion. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 M

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

inexplicable about Wolfe, 6 is that it ignores its own prior precedent by 7 Judge Cope in his concurring decision in Boca 8 Investors Group vs. Potash, 835 So2d. 273. 9 THE COURT: That was a concurring opinion? 10 MR. KING: Yes, that was his concurring 11 opinion. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR

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

cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not be barred by the litigation privilege.’”’); Boca Investors Group, Inc. v. Potash, 835 So. 2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Cope, J., concurring) (litigation privilege would not be a bar to a malicious prosecution action); North Sta

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