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

ss and malicious prosecution claims, and also finding that Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe provided "binding precedent in this area of law." (R. 1203).2 Fi

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

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

of , 2014. SIGNED & DATED MAY 2 7 2014 JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Copies furnished

LT "II" EFTA00805524 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Midcllebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These case

underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, quoting in large part from Echevarria, found specifically that the litigation privilege applies to m

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

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

of , 2014. SIGNED & DATED MAY 2 7 2014 JUDGE DONALD W. HAFELE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Copies famished t

HIAIT "B" EFTA00617998 The Court thoroughly reviewed Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. US. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994), Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007), and Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1540 (July 17, 2013). These case

underlying proceeding. Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 SO. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). This position was reaffirmed in Echevarria. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal, quoting in large part from Echevarria, found specifically that the litigation privilege applies to m

ation was completed. Additionally, The Honorable Donald W. Hafele's stated interest in first allowing the

o use their best judgment in prosecuting ... a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct." Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & &apple?. v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007). It is also crucial that these e-mails be available to the jury as the

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

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

otograph taken for US Weekly magazine. 13. Epstein alleges that there was something improper in the fact that I notified him that I intended to take Donald Trump’s deposition in the civil suits against him. Trump was properly noticed because: (a) after review of the message pads confiscated from Epstein’s home,