Epstein Secrets

24 18:16 11:8 42:22 13:2 14:4,17 Madam (1) matters (1) LatAin (1) level (1) 14:22 15:2,9 61:16 8:19 39:25 52:16 16:9 17:1 maintain (1) Maxwell (3) latch (1) Levin (23) 18:20 19:21 40:10 1:24 62:8,18 40:5 11:10,25,25 21:6,9,10,19 malting (3) mean (2) late (2) 12:6,19 13:6 21:22,2

MR. BREWER: So let's get into the Wolfe case. That's where we're headed next. And really there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to 191

•• "THE COURT: This deals with the litigation privilege?" The attorney then goes on to say, "Yes, sir, it does deal with litigation privilege. Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege. Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for

submits that the trial court's Order granting his Motion for Summary Judgment was proper, as the binding decisions by the Florida Supreme Court in Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007) and Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

:24 18:16 11:8 42:22 13:2 14:4,17 Madam (1) matters (1) LatAm (1) level (1) 14:22 15:2,9 61:16 8:19 39:25 52:16 16:9 17:1 maintain (1) Maxwell (3) latch (1) Levin (23) 18:20 19:21 40:10 1:24 62:8,18 40:5 11:10,25,25 21:6,9,10,19 making (3) mean (2) late (2) 12:6,19 13:6 21:22,25

nger an issue either for purposes of 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and now this Wolfe case is not being disposed of 23 24 25 Wolfe, Levin, and Echevarria cases. this summary judgment. Pursuant -- THE COURT: Let me stop you, Mr. King, so that you're not confused by my preliminary statements to Mr. B

A: So let's get into the Wolfe 9 case. That's where we're headed next. And really 10 there's a trilogy of cases. There's the Levin 11 case, the Echevarria case, if I'm somewhere close 12 to pronouncing that correctly, and the Wolfe case. 13 All of them deal with litigation privilege which 14 dates

f Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit “B”). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein’s house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein we

“B”). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein’s house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Compla

s personal pilot), Larry Harrison (Epstein’s personal pilot), Louella Rabuyo (Epstein’s housekeeper), Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein’s live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of Epstein’s affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein’s brother), and Fane Banasiak (Epstein’s house manager) It was nearly im

nesses, and counsel as well. id. The litigation privilege applies in all causes of action, whether for common- law torts or statutory violations. See Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007). Defamatory statements made by lawyer while interviewing a witness in prepar