Epstein Secrets

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

endant; (2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising the illegal, improper, or perverted process; and (3) damages to the plaintiff as a result. Valdes v. GAB Robins N. Am. Inc., 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). in Because it is undisputed that the acts relating to abuse of process complained of

da confirming that — like the other attorneys at R.RA — he was a "victim" (not perpetrator) of Rothstein's Ponzi scheme, as well as a decision from the Florida Bar dismissing an ethics complaint in which Epstein similarly charged that Edwards was involved in Rothstein's wrongdoing. See SUF ¶¶ 91-92 . So too, e

36 (1950) 13 Ulrich v. Coast Dental Servs., Inc., 739 So.2d 142 (FIa. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) 30 iv DINT 15845345v3 3970112.000042 EFTA00596453 Valdes v. GAB Robins North Am., Inc., 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) 17 Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) 21 Wains

licious prosecution or abuse of process; 19 rather, it would be through the court with 20 contempt proceedings, perhaps. It would be 21 through the Florida Bar for, you know, 22 inappropriate actions taken by an attorney. It 23 could be perjury for a litigant which would be 24 handled by the state. 25

issal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-fide termination, one of the six essential elements of a malicious prosecution claim. See Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Appellant neither addresses nor submits argument as to Appellee's assertion, so this is not addres