Epstein Secrets

nt. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on September 25, 2017. Jack Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 WM, BURLINGTON & ROCKENBACH, P.A. C

, FL 33301 15 954.467.1223 BY: TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE [email protected] 16 17 On behalf of Bradley J. Edwards: 18 SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 19 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 20 561.686.6300 BY: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE 21 JSX@searc

CA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at O

osecution claim. Appellant was undoubtedly aware of the Steinberg decision, as it was Appellant's counsel who not only represented the Appellant in Steinberg, but also filed his own initial brief from the Steinberg case in the instant case as a Supplementary Submission in Support of Edwards' Motion for R

February , 2015: William B. King Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes

CA 2014) 15 Rivernider v. Meyer, Case Number 4D14-819 10 SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) 22 Steinberg v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at O

osecution claim. Appellant was undoubtedly aware of the Steinberg decision, as it was Appellant's counsel who not only represented the Appellant in Steinberg, but also filed his own initial brief from the Steinberg case in the instant case as a Supplementary Submission in Support of Edwards's Motion for

February 25, 2015: William B. King Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes

m would completely eviscerate the cause of action for malicious prosecution. However, that very same argument was flatly rejected in both Wolfe and Steinberg. The Wolfe decision, as well as the 16 EFTA00613605 Levin and Echevarria decisions, merely hold that "absolute immunity must be afforded to any