Epstein Secrets

ives the privilege. United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982). The general rule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he volu

es here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were sha

ilege where that disclosure is inconsistent with maintaining secrecy from the disclosing party's adversary." Tumelaire v. Naples Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 137 So. 3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Tumelaire, the plaintiff was accused of conspiring with a mobile home park's owner in litigation agains

OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail on this 16th day of February, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, E., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury,

Mail on this 16th day of February, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

icated documentary evidence may not be relied on or considered in support of a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Hollywood Towers Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hampton, 993 So. 2d 174, 175-176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (unauthenticated photocopies of check, letter and bank statement attached to motion for sum

5 SE 7th Street Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954.467.1223 954.337.3716 (facsimile) Counsel for Epstein EFTA00589665 SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P

10-12 ("You get back, you said, on the 3rd? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir. THE COURT: So we can give you some tim

ing is an essential part of justice; and an overspeaking judge is no well tuned cymbal." Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citations omitted). Florida law mandates recusal of a judge when a litigant establishes a reasonable, well

Y CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-Serve to all Counsel on the attached list, this 9 0-11--d:y of July, 2018. JACK SCAROLA Florida Bar No.: 169 DAVID P. VITALE JR. Florida Bar No.: Attorne E-Mail s : and Primary E-Mail: Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 21

hed list, this 9 0-11--d:y of July, 2018. JACK SCAROLA Florida Bar No.: 169 DAVID P. VITALE JR. Flori

expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law." Edward J. Seibert, Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass'n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) citing Devin v. City of Hollywood, 351 So. 2d 1022, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Thus, Smith's purported opinio

es here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were sha

annot have his cake and eat it too. Simply put, actions speak louder than words. The general rule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he volu

ion of legal services to the client. 2. Those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication. Las Olas River House Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lorh, LLC, 181 So. 3d 556, 557-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); § 90.502(1Xc), Fla. Stat. (2017); Witte v. Witte, 126 So. 3d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)(sec