Epstein Secrets

CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 I ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEFFREY EPSTEIN TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 176737 TONJA HADDAD, PA 315 SE 7th Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 467-1223 6 4 337-3716 facsimile) JOHN BERANEK Fla. Bar No.: 0005419 AUSL

16 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) 21 Jackson v. Attorney's

ion is reviewable on appeal' and the availability of other remedies through which the trial court could mitigate the harm. . ." Id. at 1215 (citing Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69). Accordingly, the DelMonico decision affirmatively recognized a litigation privilege where, as in the instant case, there is jud

njoys the same immunity. We agree." Id. at 427. Appellant's reliance on Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992) is also erroneous, as in Fridovich the Florida Supreme Court specifically concluded that only a qualified privilege is applicable when private individuals voluntarily make defamatory

A CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEFFREY EPSTEIN TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 176737 TONJA HADDAD, PA 315 SE 7th Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 467-1223 (954) 337-3716 (facsimile) [email protected] JOHN BERANEK F

ion is reviewable on appeal' and the availability of other remedies through which the trial court could mitigate the harm. . ." Id. at 1215 (citing Fridovich, 598 So. 2d at 69). Accordingly, the DelMonico decision affirmatively recognized a litigation privilege where, as in the instant case, there is jud

116 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2013) 2, 10, 18, 19 Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barren & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) passim Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (FIa. 1992) 13, 17, 22 Graham-Eckes Palm Beach Academy v. Johnson, 573 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) 21 Jackson v. Attorney's

njoys the same immunity. We agree." Id. at 427. Appellant's reliance on Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1992) is also erroneous, as in Fridovich the Florida Supreme Court specifically concluded that only a qualified privilege is applicable when private individuals voluntarily make defamatory

South Australian Avenue Suite 1400 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561.659.8300 11 BY: JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE [email protected] 12 13 TONJA HADDAD, PA 315 SE 7th Street 14 Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 15 954.467.1223 BY: TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE [email protected] 16 17

n of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 Sold. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of whether a person

accusing Olson of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 Sold. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of wh

berger, Esq. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 O1 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. TONJA HADDAD, P.A. 5315 SE 7th Street., Ste. 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ttorneys or e rey pstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARD

accusing Olson of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 So2d. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of wh

n of stalking. And 8 the court distinguished that claim privilege from 9 a defamation case that was addressed in a case 10 called Fridovich vs. Fridovich, 598 So2d. 65, 11 Florida Supreme Court case 1992, in which the 12 Supreme Court was presented with a certified 13 question of whether a person