Epstein Secrets

d 24 pectedings wen had: 24 to me. 25 Rebated EN Malin Fit= 25 MR. LICHTMAN: Correct, Judge. Paget Page 4 I APPEARANCES: I THE COURT: Mr. Scherer. 2 3 DERV-RW/90SW" to 2 MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, your Honor. CHARLES H. LICHTMAN, ESQUIRE 3 I'm William Soberer and Ern here on behalf of a 4

ay. II date and proceedings were taken before me at toed 11 THE COURT: You're going to have to check 12 place as stated in the caption hurt° on Pagel; 12 with this, quote, 'special master" to make sure they 13 that the (ongoing computer-aided transcription is 13 have the time to review the privi

d 24 pectedings wen had: 24 to me. 25 Rebated EN Malin Fit= 25 MR. LICHTMAN: Correct, Judge. Paget Page 4 I APPEARANCES: I THE COURT: Mr. Scherer. 2 3 DERV-RW/90SW" to 2 MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, your Honor. CHARLES H. LICHTMAN, ESQUIRE 3 I'm William Soberer and Ern here on behalf of a 4

ay. II date and proceedings were taken before me at toed 11 THE COURT: You're going to have to check 12 place as stated in the caption hurt° on Pagel; 12 with this, quote, 'special master" to make sure they 13 that the (ongoing computer-aided transcription is 13 have the time to review the privi

proccedino were had: 24 to me. 25 Repotted By: Mutant Franz= 25 MR. LICHTMAN: Correct, Judge. Page 2 Page 4 1 APPEARANOIS 1 THE COURT: Mr. Scherer. 7 3 BERGER 8/910BILMAN. try 2 MR. SCHERER: Yes, sir, your Honor. CHARLES H. WHOA" ESQUIRE 3 I'm William Scherer and I'm here on behalf of a

2) OUELLETTE & MAULDTN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00235303 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'02,2010 Page 4 of 10 Pagel) PRIM 1 attorney/client privilege. 1 Mr. Scherer's clients, who have claims before 2 Now, most of this stuff we've already 2 this Court, and

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

ned in that action.” AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dept. of Transp., ___S0.2d__, 2010 WL 1542634 at *2 (Fla. 1* Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984). Obviously, any question of improper “pumping” of a 11 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013380 --- PAGE BREAK --- particular cas