Epstein Secrets

ng of motions and a brief by the Guardian in appellate proceedings conflicts with these functions, and violates the statutory prohibi- tion against Guardians acting as advocates. See§ 61.403 Fla. Stat. (1997); Scaringe v. Herrick, 711 So.2d at 204. Simply, the Guardian does not have a statutory right to

ld a stay not be 769 So.2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Defendants fail to adequately ad completely ignores the likelihood likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan paragraph 3 of his motion. Here, Defe

ng of motions and a brief by the Guardian in appellate proceedings conflicts with these functions, and violates the statutory prohibi- tion against Guardians acting as advocates. See§ 1.403 Fla. Stat. (1997); Scaringe v. Herrick, 711 Eld at 204. Simply, the Guardian does not have a statutory right to ap

ately ad s these fa rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to

ng of motions and a brief by the Guardian in appellate proceedings conflicts with these functions, and violates the statutory prohibi- tion against Guardians acting as advocates. See§ 61.403 Fla. Stat. (1997); Scaringe v. Herrick. 711 So.2d at 204. Simply, the Guardian does not have a statutory right to

equately ad•` s fa ;•rs in their motion. In fact, Defendant completely ignores the likelihood Likely this is because there is no likelihood that the Fourth District would reverse ling since the proper procedures for sealing the NPA were never followed. As to likelihood of harm, the only reference Defendan to