Epstein Secrets

tein respectfully seeks reconsideration and an opportunity for the parties to be heard at oral argument on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 16 EFTA00808220 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Gol

on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 16 EFTA0080

the prosecution; 5) malice; 6) damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecuti

hearing indicated that Edwards' burden was proving no probable cause at the time Epstein filed the original civil proceeding and Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, corrected him and stated: We contend there was no probable cause to continue the proceeding. The initiation and continuation of the proceeding cau

dary: Secondary: Secondary: Secondary: Trial Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, M. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards

ef, based on facts and circumstances known to him, in the validity of the claim." Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Goldstein v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). A litigant may rely on first-hand knowledge or "trustworthy information that was provided" to him. Gill v. K

afele, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 10.1216, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and to all counsel on the attached service list, by email, on March 12, 2018. Jack Scarola, Esq. Karen Terry, Esq. David J. Vitale, Jr. Esq. SEARCY DENNY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL

ott J. Link FBN 602991 Primary: Secondary: Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL 33409 ter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Nichole J. Segal Burlington

tances known to him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the trial and first addressing Plaintiff's case and damages against Rothstein and the related

ruling on the issue of probable cause, and an opportunity for the parties to be heard at oral argument on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 25 EFTA00799363 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . • Atterbury,

on this motion. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 25 EFTA0079

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

to be heard at oral argument regarding any assertions by Edwards attempting to refute the existence of probable cause. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Goldber er, Es . Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P

probable cause. TONJA ET AL. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola, Es . Searcy Denney Scarola et al. 2139 Palm Be

damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecutio

ris SERVICE LIST: William B. King Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. Philip M. Burlington

nt. The court rejected the Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." (R. 833-837). The Record Demonstrates Probable Cause for Epstein's Lawsuit In Goldstein v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious -15- EFTA0