Epstein Secrets

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

in Cases")4 that were being used to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme.5 [Cite Epstein Affidavit]. News outlets also reported at that time that the Florida Bar had begun actively investigating dozens of attorneys employed by RRA in connection with the Ponzi Scheme. [Cite Epstein Affidavit]; Miami Herald, S

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

ns of dollars and to fund the RRA Ponzi Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t

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

ons of dollars and to fund the RRA Pont Scheme. In November 2009, I also became aware of news stories that as a result of the Ponzi scheme at RRA, the Florida Bar had commenced investigations into over one-half of the attorneys employed by RRA. At or about the same time in November 2009, I also became aware t