Epstein Secrets

the undersigned and his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, Esq., and both were present for the above depos

r. Epstein was in attendance for said deposition. 2. Mr. Epstein is represented in this action by both the undersigned and his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, Esq., and both were present for the above deposition. 3. Spencer Kuvin, counsel for Plaintiff, E., was the attorney scheduled to take Mr. Epstei

roper manner, and to protect the court from acts obstructing the administration of justice." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Maves & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608-09 (Fla. 1994). Most recently, the Supreme Court in Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So.2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998), recognized the inhe

his day of May, 2011 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. Law Offices

h Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

icial Statements, et al. proceeding if the act "has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The litigation privilege bars Edwards' claim against Epstein because the filing of a complaint by Epstein has "so

ant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley I Edwards Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, .. 250 Australia

itigation privilege and it could serve as a basis for probable cause to bring a claim. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). Epstein's Complaints identified numerous instances of conduct by Edwards that were outside the parameters of the