Epstein Secrets

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

ls to satisfy the particularity requirement if an ambiguity could reasonably affect the offeree's decision to accept or reject. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger 42 So.3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As the Supreme Court has noted State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067, 1079

against Epstein on behalf of Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. before joining RRA, but some months after he joi

adverse party to show that the communication was not privileged. Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); see also Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, 192-93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ("[N]othing in the record indicates that any documents are protected by the attorney/client p

rney's Office, Washington, D.C., in U.S. v. John W. Hinckley, Jr. (attempted assassination of Presid

Jerner v. Allstate (Orlando, Florida) Testified at evidentiary hearing, 9/1/95 EFTA00072971 Park Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. Page 26 Am. Natl. Fire Ins. Co. v. Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. (Houston, Texas) Testified at deposition, 10/4/95 People of CA v. Erik Menendez (Los Angeles, California) Testified at