Epstein Secrets

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

MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to 191

•• "THE COURT: This deals with the litigation privilege?" The attorney then goes on to say, "Yes, sir, it does deal with litigation privilege. Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege. Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

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:

nger an issue either for purposes of 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and now this Wolfe case is not being disposed of 23 24 25 Wolfe, Levin, and Echevarria cases. this summary judgment. Pursuant -- THE COURT: Let me stop you, Mr. King, so that you're not confused by my preliminary statements to Mr. B

A: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation privilege which 14 dates

ule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he voluntarily furnished the e-mails to Mr. Scherer. Razorback sought these allegedly privileged

o use their best judgment in prosecuting ... a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct." Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & &apple?. v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007). It is also crucial that these e-mails be available to the jury as the

Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rothstein, et al., Case No. 09-062943 ("Razorback Complaint"), on behalf of some of the Pont scheme investors. Mr. Scherer asserted the following in the Razorback Complaint at pages 16-17 regarding the Epstein cases: In certain instances, the purported settlements, albe

ss and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding precedent in this area of law." (R. 1203).2 Fi

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

nesses, and counsel as well. id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in prepar