Epstein Secrets

to allow a party to `prosecut[e] or defend[] a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct.' Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007); see also Levin, 639 So.2d at 608 C[A]bsolute immunity must be afforde

OURT: Mr. King, anything that's being alleged here that goes outside of the broad spectrum that I have read into the record that has its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion? MR. KING: There's nothing alleged. (T. 53-54). Accordingly, as explicitly stat

requests this Court to infer about Wright as a result of its citation in Levin, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently made it abundantly clear in Echevarria that "the nature of the underlying dispute simply does not matter," and mandated that the litigation privilege be broadly applied "across the board

Beach FL 33401 24 EFTA00613613 W. Chester Brewer, Jr. W. Chester Brewer, Jr. P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 WestP m B h FL 33401 /s/ John Beranek JOHN BERANEK Fla. Bar No.: 0005419 AUSLEY & MCMULLEN, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street P.O. Box 391 (zip 32302) /s/ Tonja Haddad Coleman Tonja Ha

vilege to a malicious prosecution case. Burlington has cited numerous cases in his Steinberg brief but he does not really cite or discuss Levin and Echevarria. The Wolf case which he is trying to reverse relies on Levin and Echevarria and Burlington does not really address them. The trial judge said he rea

has no choice. I would be happy to discuss it further and I think my job would be to remind the Fourth District that their decision got reversed in Echevarria. Let me know if you want to talk about it on the phone or what you want to do next. Sincerely, John Beranek 6/16/2014 EFTA00613878

Epstein v. Edwards Page 1 of 1 From: John Beranek > To: wcbiew ; wcbcg Subject: Epstein v. Edwards Date: Mon. Jun 16, 2014 4:06 pm Chet -- I have reviewed what you sent me with your letter of J

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

rily reverse the order granting summary judgment as to the cause of action for malicious prosecution. 5. Citing health problems, Epstein's counsel, John Beranek, moved for a 30- day extension of time to file a response, noting the possibility that new counsel might have to appear on behalf of Epstein. 6. Th