Epstein Secrets

ing eight months, when the cases were not being prosecuted by RRA, may not have even exceeded $25,000. (Ex. 2 at 6; R. 813-14). -14- EFTA00612496 Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no connection whatsoever to any claims of misconduct made by Edwards's clients. Equally consistent wit

. 2 at 6; R. 813-14). -14- EFTA00612496 Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have no c

00. (Ex. 2 at 6; R. 813-14). -14- EFTA00612496 Donald Trump and David Copperfield, who appeared to have

ts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present

at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and jury." 446 So. 2d at 1167. Here, both the aff

Courtroom 9C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Circuit Judge This cause came on to be h

are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606536 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 privilege. And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up with any other conclusion other than t

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court itself 2

Courtroom 9C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 BEFORE: Donald Hafele, Circuit Judge This cause came on to be h

ims are not subject to the litigation www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 001237 EFTA00613534 28 1 privilege. 2 And if you read Wright vs. Yurko, you read 3 Judge Cope's concurring opinion, and you read the 4 panel's footnote in SCI, one should not come up 5 with any other conclusion oth

ion in 2000, both of which both 19 Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that 20 the Supreme Court's citation in Levin to Wright 21 vs. Yurko, which I cited in the memorandum, which 22 was a Fifth DCA decision back in 1984, implicitly 23 24 25 recognizes -- that is the Supreme Court i

foregoing was furnished by mail to The Honorable Donald W. Hafele, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10.1216, We

n determine whether Plaintiff "had a reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the tria

fact that I notified him that I intended to take Donald Trump’s deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump

a state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and would not

he deposition of Donald Trump. Edwards possessed a legitimate basis for doing so: (a) The message pads eaifisnated from Epstein’s home indicated that Trump called Epstein’s West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to my Edwards’s clients’ complaints; (b) Trump was