Epstein Secrets

.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL){LEVEL 1) against the form of the statute, to the evil example of aft others. and against the peace and dignity of the State of Fbrtda. I hereby certify that I have advised the Grand Jury returning this indictment as authorized and required by law. Assistant State Attorney of the

9-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."). DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ I, 2, 7 (filed "

y time don't understand one of Page 4 1 Deposition taken before Judith F. Consor, 2 Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 3 Flsrida at Large, in the above cause. 4 5 Thereupon, 6 7 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined 8 and testified as follows: 9 THE W

e foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else (= for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own crimina

the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of process claim and a malicious prosecut

ctions taken by him occurred during the litigation of his abuse of process claim against Edwards. For support, he relies primarily on the decision of Wolfe v. Foreman, 2013 WL 3724763 (Fla. 3d DCA July 17, 2013), wherein the Third District found that the litigation privilege barred both an abuse of proc

ous prosecution is not barred by the litigation privilege — an implicit recognition acknowledged by the Third District itself — Epstein’s reliance on Wolfe is misplaced. Wo/fe is also factually distinguishable from Edwards’ claims against Epstein. Wolfe involved a malicious prosecution action against att

Rcpnrini; and Transtrirum. lu 1 2 3 Page 4 Deposition taken before Judith F. Consor, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of FlDrida at Large, in the above cause. 4 - - - 5 Thereupon, 6 7 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined a and testified as follows: 9

9-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Intervenor's Complaint, at ¶ 2 (filed by "Jane Doe's Mother" and stating that "Jane Doe's Mother is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia."). DE 5-2, Jane Doe No. I v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80069-Civ-Marra (1/29/08); Petition for Removal of Disability of Non-Age, at ¶¶ 1, 2. 7 (filed "

n the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone els for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Fe/d & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own crimina