Epstein Secrets

would be in the best interests of the parties and the public, inasmuch as it would avoid needless expense and conserve precious judicial resources. Walker v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 121 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). As explained below, the undisputed and incontrovertible facts establish tha

in Cases")4 that were being used to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme.5 [Cite Epstein Affidavit]. News outlets also reported at that time that the Florida Bar had begun actively investigating dozens of attorneys employed by RRA in connection with the Ponzi Scheme. [Cite Epstein Affidavit]; Miami Herald, S

Haddad, Tonja 8/26/2013 For Educational Use Only Wolfe v. Foreman, — So.3d — (2013) 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 Co., 863 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla.2003); Walker v. Figarola, 59 So.3d 188, 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). The litigation privilege was first recognized in Florida in 1907 to provide legal immunity for

PHERD, C.J., specially concurring. The only remarkable thing about this case is its existence. As the managing attorney of the Miami office of The Florida Bar explained to Mr. Wolfe (himself a licensed Florida attorney), when he refused to accept staff counsel's initial rejection of his Bar complaint agai

When other plea arrangements have been negotiated in violation of federal law, they have been stricken by the courts. For example, United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), held that where a sentence on a new crime could not run concurrently with a probation revocation the defendant was th

aintiffs. Without attempting to make any connection to the asserted violation of the CVRA, Paragraphs 52 and 53 falsely allege that Movant violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing Epstein's employees in civil litigation after Movant retired from the United States Att

ment that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses); see also United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that judge was not compelled to impose a concurrent sentence where judge had erroneously represent

& ASSOCIATES, LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 2028 Harrison Street - Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: Jay Howell, Esquire Florida Bar JAY HOWEEL SSOCIATES, P.A. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 644 Cesery Boulevard - Suite 250 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Telephone: Facsimile: By: Bra