Epstein Secrets

at offenders cannot possess any such material. Its decision expressly and directly conflicts with the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Taylor v. State, 821 So. 2d 404, 405-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which held that a condition prohibiting the defendant from "viewing, EFTA00731431 owning, or

nly such material relevant to the offender's deviant behavior. In the decision below, Kasischke v. State, 946 So. 2d 1155, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the Third District Court of Appeal held that offenders cannot possess any such material. Its decision expressly and directly conflicts with the Second District Court of Appeal's deci

w or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of then-existing law. See, e.g., Read v. Taylor , 832 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As fully explained below, Edwards's claims against Epstein are meritless and in direct contravention with the

38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), is instructive, as it is directly on point with the facts and law presented in the case at hand. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an abuse of process and malicious prosecution action, finding t

w or should have known that the claim or defense asserted was not supported by the facts or an application of then-existing law. See, e.g., Read v. Taylor , 832 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Epstein served another motion and letter pursuant to §57.105 on August 29, 2013, based upon the Third Distric

., Read v. Taylor , 832 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Epstein served another motion and letter pursuant to §57.105 on August 29, 2013, based upon the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), which analyzed all of the law germane to the litigation privilege upon whic