Epstein Secrets

elate to the proceeding, then it would not be covered by the litigation privilege and it could serve as a basis for probable cause to bring a claim. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). Epstein's Complaints identif

itigation privilege and it could serve as a basis for probable cause to bring a claim. Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). Epstein's Complaints identified numerous instances of conduct by Edwards that were outside the parameters of the

y to enforce its orders, to conduct its business in a proper manner, and to protect the court from acts obstructing the administration of justice." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Maves & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608-09 (Fla. 1994). Most recently, the Supreme Court i

roper manner, and to protect the court from acts obstructing the administration of justice." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Maves & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608-09 (Fla. 1994). Most recently, the Supreme Court in Bitterman v. Bitterman, 714 So.2d 356, 365 (Fla. 1998), recognized the inhe

B AG Epstcin's Am MPO Prejclude O/C, etc. from Making Extrajudicial Statements, et al. proceeding if the act "has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The litigation privilege bars

icial Statements, et al. proceeding if the act "has some relation to the proceeding." Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994). The litigation privilege bars Edwards' claim against Epstein because the filing of a complaint by Epstein has "so