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

scale (1) 50:11 Scarola (17) 2:18,20 4:19,20 4:24 5:4,12,16 5:22 6:3 7:5 9:10 22:13,24 37:19 46:11,20 scheme (1) 19:22 schemes (1) 18:16 Scherer (1) 19:6 SCI (3) 27:16,19 28:4 scope (1) 21:21 SCOTT (1) 1:7 se (2) 2:13 40:16 SEARCY (1) 2:18 seat (1) 3:4 second (3) 25:11 29:9 31:

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

27:17 23:6 42:8 spectrum (1) 12 NI (2) schemes (1) set (5) sir (6) 54:11 1:24 62:18 18:16 6:15,16,18 5:12,18,22 6:9 split (3) RRA (2) Scherer (1) 37:25 54:21 21:1,9 3:13 46:15,19 37:11 44:3 19:6 sets (3) sitting (4) stage (3) RRA's (1) SCI (3) 25:21 37:21 43:8,9 52:10,11 35:10

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

ase No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment Page 12 of 15 reliance on public filings, including the Scherer Complaint against Rothstein is unavailing. As discussed above, the evidence warrants the finding that Epstein knew that Edwards was legitimately purs