Epstein Secrets

has been duly furnished via G Email, G Facsimile, G U.S. Mail, G Hand Delivery, G Federal Express this day of April, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. P.O. Drawer 3626 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 A

ng of that lawsuit. Fifth, abuse of process is based on process used for an immediate purpose other than that for which it was designed. See, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208 and n. I (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Edwards, however, does not allege that any specific process was used by Epstein for an

tedly baseless lawsuit. Given the fact that the mere filing or service of a spurious claim is not itself actionable as abuse of process, see, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Blue v Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), it necessarily follows that Edwa

has been duly furnished via G Email, G Facsimile, G U.S. Mail, G Hand Delivery, G Federal Express this day of April, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Drawer 3626 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, M. 250 Australian A

ch requires abuse of the judicial system subsequent to the filing of a complaint — not purportedly unfounded allegations in a complaint. See, e.g., McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Blue v Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Finally, to the extent that Edw

CE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this 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 Sou

r purpose after an action was filed and process served. See,. e.g., Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); McMurray v. U-Haul Co, Inc., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Accordingly, the filing of an action itself does not constitute abuse of process.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this day of October, 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 Sou

, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(counterclaim allegedly causing undue expenditure of time and money did not constitute abuse of process); McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983)(same); Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)("[N]o abuse of the - 4 -

CE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via e-mail and U.S. Mail this 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 Sou

, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(counterclaim allegedly causing undue expenditure of time and money did not constitute abuse of process); McMurray v. U-Haul Co., 425 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 4'h DCA 1983)(same); Blue v. Weinstein, 381 So. 2d 308, 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)("[N]o abuse of the proces