Epstein Secrets

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

n behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed the use of the Epstein Cases (i.e., the cases being litigated against me by Edwards) to defraud investors in the Ponzi 7 EFTA00808211 Scheme; including, but not limited to,

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

n behalf of some of the Ponzi Scheme investors. Upon reviewing the Razorback Complaint, I learned that the Razorback Complaint detailed the use of the Epstein Cases (i.e., the cases being litigated against me by Edwards) to defraud investors in the Ponzi Scheme; including, but not limited to, improper discovery

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

ting against Epstein (the "Epstein Cases").4 It was specifically alleged in the Razorback Complaint that such fraudulent discovery and pleadings in the Epstein Cases were being used at RRA to overinflate the monetary value of the Epstein Cases and legitimize false claims to potential investors that Epstein was w