Epstein Secrets

rms the basis of the "facts" set forth in ¶ 80, in which Edwards cites the affidavit of Michael Fisten (Ex. QQ), an investigator who recounted what George Rush, a New York Daily News reporter, told Fisten what Epstein had said in an interview with Rush. EDWARDS' "FACTS" PERTAINING TO OTHER PURPORTED A

there is no immunity for acts undertaken in judicial proceedings that bear no relation to those proceedings. See, e.g., Levin, Middlebrooks, Mahie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 616, 608 (1994). It is for a fact finder to determine whether Edwards' acts were in furtherance of the judi

ckenbach, P.A. Courthouse Commons/Suite 350 444 W. Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fred

ases upon which Appellee relies in support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling was proper; Levin, 9 EFTA00589629 Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 38

& Rockenbach, Courthouse Commons/Suite 350 444 W. Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach FL 334 1 Fred H

s of the seminal cases upon which Appellee relies in support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling was proper; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, M. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00714932 Frappier v. Cole,

Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR.

s of the seminal cases upon which Appellee relies in support of his assertion that the trial court's ruling was proper; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994) and Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & 9 EFTA00613598 Frappier v. Cole