Filing Electronically Filed PM JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO I NOTICE OF FILING COPY OF TRANSCTIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS OF Plaintiff JEFFREY EPSTEIN by and through his undersigned attorney hereby files a copy of the Transcript of the Hearing conducted on January on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to counsel on the attached Service List by electronic mail this th day of February Isl Chester Brewer Jr CHESTER BREWER JR Florida Bar No Chester Brewer Jr P.A Attorney for Counter-Defendant Suite Australian A venue South West Palm Beach Florida Telephone Facsimile Primary email wcblaw aol.com Secondary email wcbcg aol.com A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O d6 I I i i CTX GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CASE NO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff COPY vs SCOTT ROTHSTEIN individually and BRADLEY EDWARDS individually Defendants I DATE TAKEN TIME PLACE BEFORE TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS Monday January p.m p.m Palm Beach County Courthouse Dixie Highway Courtroom 9C West Palm Beach FL Donald Hafele Circuit Judge This cause came on to be heard at the time and place aforesaid when and where the following proceedings were stenographically reported by Robyn Maxwell RPR FPR CLR Realtime Systems Administrator w.phippsreporting.com APPEARANCES On behalf of the Plaintiff CHESTER BREWER JR P.A South Australian Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL BY CHESTER BREWER JR ESQUIRE wcblaw aol.com ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER WEISS PA South Australian Avenue Suite West Palm Beach FL BY JACK A GOLDBERGER ESQUIRE jgoldberger agwpa.com TONJA HADDAD PA SE 7th Street Suite Fort Lauderdale FL BY TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN ESQUIRE tonja tonjahaddad.com On behalf of Bradley Edwards SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART SHIPLEY P.A Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL BY JACK SCAROLA ESQUIRE JSX searcylaw.com BY WILLIAM KING ESQUIRE Wbk searcylaw.com w.phippsreporting.com Thereupon the following proceedings began at p.m THE COURT Good afternoon everybody Thank you so much Have a seat Welcome MR BREWER Good afternoon Your Honor THE COURT I had the opportunity to read the binder and the materials sent to me by respective counsel I dont think the case should take two hours MR BREWER No THE COURT So what Im going to ask you to do is kindly tailor your arguments to one-half hour apiece And the movant may split up the time to save some moments for rebuttal And I think that should more than adequately deal with the matter I think the United States Supreme Court heard the Brown vs Board Of Education and gave minutes a side So if that can be done in that amount of time I think we can take care of this And of course you all realize and I don think this has anything whatsoever to do with the matter but I should let you know that I handled the state claims that involved Mr Epstein when I was in Division So I have a significant w.phippsreporting.com amount of familiarity with the claims that were made However until I met with Judge Crow involving this case I had no knowledge whatsoever that a separate and independent action had been brought by Mr Epstein against the Rothstein entities and Mr Edwards So to that extent I just to want let you know as you probably already did already know that I handled those cases I believe to their conclusion at or near the time that I left that division two years ago or so Okay So are you Ms Haddad MS HADDAD I am THE COURT Will you be arguing on behalf Mr Epstein MS HADDAD No Judge I dont have Mr Brewer will be arguing on our behalf because as you can hear I have a cold THE COURT All right Mr Scarola did you want to say something MR SCAROLA I did Your Honor I just wanted to clarify one matter which I believe to be of some significance THE COURT Sure Of course MR SCAROLA And that is Your Honor referenced a claim against the Rothstein entities w.phippsreporting.com and that is not the case THE COURT It was just Rothstein individually MR SCAROLA It was just against Mr Rothstein individually That claim has neyer really been defended and against Mr Edwards And the focus of these motions is only on Mr Edwards claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution THE COURT The later I knew My apologies for misstating the number of defendants involved MR SCAROLA No apology necessary sir THE COURT The only defendants involved and they may have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice is that accurate MR SCAROLA There was a voluntary dismissal of the initial claims brought against Mr Edwards thats correct sir on the eve of summary judgment hearing THE COURT I remember that being written in your papers MR SCAROLA Yes sir THE COURT So is Epstein claim against Rothstein still viable at this juncture MS HADDAD Yes Your Honor it is w.phippsreporting.com THE COURT So the dismissed case without prejudice was to was as to Mr Edwards only MR SCAROLA The claims against LM one of victims of Mr Epsteins conduct those claims are also dismissed THE COURT Okay Thank you for that clarification I much appreciate it Mr Brewer MR BREWER Yes sir Well first of all Your Honor Im Chester Brewer appearing on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein We have before you today a motion for summary judgment filed on behalf Mr Epstein with regard to a counterclaim that was filed by Mr Edwards The case is currently set before Your Honor specially set I might say for a three-week or proposed three-week trial and it is currently set for May the 6th of this year One thing that I did want to talk to the Court about before going into the procedural history is in the package that was provided to you by counsel for Mr Edwards there is a statement or interview that is with a young lady by the name of Virginia Roberts Now I dont know whether you have had an opportunity to read it or not w.phippsreporting.com THE COURT I didnt I saw the reference to Ms Roberts Who is she MR BREWER Ms Roberts was an alleged victim of Mr Epstein There was an interview taken of her by Mr Scarola and I believe Mr Edwards Theres a transcript of that interview which is neither sworn to nor even signed Its something that could not be used for any purpose in the trial of this matter even for impeachment So if Your Honor has not read it I wont go into it THE COURT No I have not read it I just saw the name Virginia Roberts bandied about on several different occasions so thats all I know And as you can tell I didnt know her relationship to the case MR BREWER Okay Your Honor the procedural history here is there were a number of claims brought by alleged victims of Mr Epstein There were a number of different attorneys that were involved And a number of different cases were filed both in federal court and in state court on behalf of these alleged victims The cases proceeded as youve said some of them were before you They have all now per my w.phippsreporting.com information they have now all concluded although there may still be some investigations THE COURT Mr Edwards at his latest deposition indicated that theres still the victim case thats going on in the federal court J:.m BREWER Nothing has happened on that for a quite some period of time now The r:-m KING Judge if I may in response to your question Im not sure what victims case that referencing All all of the cases THE COURT This was a federal statutory J:.m KING I THE COURT that Mr Edwards indicates he doing pro bono on behalf of two of the alleged victims J:.m KING Youre correct THE COURT In the Epstein matters MR KING Thats correct Sorry for the interruption THE COURT Thats okay MR BREWER During the course of those cases there was some rather unusual discovery that was taking place And it was learned and I w.phippsreporting.com Ill get into this towards the end of my presentation but there were a number of things that were learned by Mr Epstein in and around November of November/December He filed a lawsuit against Mr Rothstein Mr Edwards and LM who is one of the alleged victims One of the counts in that was for malicious I believe its he only had abuse of process along with some other counts In response to that complaint Mr Scarola on behalf of Mr Edwards filed a counterclaim That counterclaim went through several amendments but the fourth amended counterclaim speaks to two causes of action that is abuse of process and malicious prosecution So those are what were here to talk about today is abuse of process and malicious prosecution as it relates to Mr Epsteins original claim against Mr Edwards In response to Mr Edwards counterclaim there were a number of affirmative defenses raised but one of them that was raised was the litigation privilege And we are here today to talk with you about the litigation privilege and its current state as espoused by the Florida Supreme Court and the Third District Court Of w.phippsreporting.com Appeals and in fact the Fourth District Court Of Appeals THE COURT One thing I wanted to interrupt you on is this Wolfe case and its current status and the Ill call the Ill call it the Edwards side to make things be easier But the Edwards side has raised the issue that apparently this Wolfe case is still in rehearing and therefore of no precedential value to the court Mr King did you want to speak briefly to that MR KING Yeah We submitted a notice of correction to Judge Sasser the other day who stood in for you on the page extension THE COURT Right MR KING We gave her that and asked her to turn that over to you THE COURT I didnt get it MR KING Okay Whats actually happened is and its confusing because Westlaw whole history on this and Mr Brewer also understands this because he ran into the same problem My reading of the history that Westlaw contains indicates that the mandate has issued but they still use the caveat this is a Westlaw w.phippsreporting.com citation only its not in the final published format and therefore it can be changed at any time.tt But with the issuance of the mandate that signifies that it is the rehearing is denied and it is now final THE COURT Okay Thank you for that I did not know that until right now MR BREWER So lets get into the Wolfe case Thats where were headed next And really theres a trilogy of cases Theres the Levin case the Echevarria case if Im somewhere close to pronouncing that correctly and the Wolfe case All of them deal with litigation privilege which dates back to And I think that we are all most familiar with the standard that defamation cases if the quote alleged defamation occurred during the co 267urse of a judicial proceeding would be protected by the litigation privilege and no action could be taken on them Over the years different courts looked at it There was an attempt there were attempts made to determine how far and to which causes of action the litigation privilege would apply The seminal case now for us I guess now is Levin This was Levin Mabie suing It was w.phippsreporting.com actually a tortious interference case But the case went up to the Florida Supreme Court And the issue before them was how far is this privilege or to what causes of action should this privilege apply And the Levin court came out and said that it would apply to all torts including the one that was before them which was tortious interference And that the standard for determining whether the action complained of would be whether that action had some relation to the proceeding the judicial preceding Later on the question came up Well should that its the weve already determined that it applies to all torts And so does it also apply to statutory violations or cases involving statutory violations And thats the Echevarria case also in front of the Florida Supreme Court some or years after Levin and they found yes that it does apply to essentially all civil judicial proceedings Now the issues before us are the litigation privilege as it applies to abuse of process and malicious prosecution That was all brought to a head in the Wolfe case In the Wolfe w.phippsreporting.com case the Third District Court Of Appeal was faced with the issue of do the does the litigation privilege apply in those two causes of action The answer was yes The Wolfe case or the Wolfe court went back and eisentially referred back to and analyzed the Levin and Echevarria cases And thats why I say its kind of a trilogy And in the Wolfe case it was determined that this was not not only was it privileged for any actions that were related to the judicial process it was an absolute privilege Now in our case we have exactly the same issue Weve got a complaint that was filed that is alleged in the counterclaim to be malicious prosecution We also have the pleadings everything that was filed after the initiation of the judicial pleading judicial process Its claimed to be an abuse of process In fact in answers to interrogatories and all of the discovery that has been had from the Edwards side they have said that the filing of the complaint was in itself it was untrue the information that was there was untrue Epstein should have known it was untrue and that he had a w.phippsreporting.com bad purpose in filing which was to intimidate or extort Mr Edwards and his client Thats been put to bed in the Wolfe case because the litigation privilege absolutely applies and is absolute The Wolfe case states that they could think or the Wolfe court stated they could think of no action that would be more related to the judicial process than the filing of a complaint So a complaint the filing of the complaint is privileged Then going back and then as they related to the Levin case and the Echevarria case they said anything that was related to the judicial process discovery depositions interrogatories as long as they were related they were protected by the participants were protected by the litigation privilege They in the trilogy and I forget which one of the cases it was but they go even further and clarify that the claim a bad motive is really irrelevant to these causes of action when you were talking about the litigation privilege The let me see where am I here In the Wolfe case it was a motion for judgment on the pleadings In some of these other w.phippsreporting.com cases it was motion for summary judgment And in all of these cases they found that the litigation privilege barred the causes of action that were being claimed The argument has been made by the other sides that because Mr Edwards or excuse me because Mr Epstein had no reason to file the original complaint that he filed that somehow or another the litigation privilege should not apply And that because he shouldnt have filed the original complaint everything that he did thereafter was an abuse of process We would put it to Your Honor thats not the standard as espoused by the Third District Court Of Appeal the Fourth District Court Of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court The standard is Did the action have some relation to the judicial proceeding THE COURT I think at least in trying to distinguish Wolfe but at the same time taking a more global approach the Edwards side is suggesting that timing and the length of time subsequent to the settlement of the pending claims and his continuing to prosecute the suit more so on the malicious prosecution side would distance w.phippsreporting.com itself from Wolfe because in Wolfe I believe the court made clear that it was a brief prosecution of the action and was not protracted How do you respond to that concern MR BREWER I respond by quoting the Florida Supreme Court which is If the action and whether theyre talking one action actions or actions if the action is related to the judicial preceding then you have a litigation privilege THE COURT And that can go on essentially forever in your mind MR BREWER I dont know that it can go on forever because also they were talking particularly in the Levin case about protections that would be afforded to litigants But those protections would not be through a cause of action for malicious prosecution or abuse of process rather it would be through the court with contempt proceedings perhaps It would be through the Florida Bar for you know inappropriate actions taken by an attorney It could be perjury for a litigant which would be handled by the state THE COURT I dont think perjury Not if w.phippsreporting.com its guised in the litigation privilege but perhaps youre right that it could be met with standards MR BREWER was the one I was just getting ready to get to Your Honor So there are protections against what youre talking about but again I have to go back to what did the Supreme Court tell us I did want to touch also on another point that was raised in our motion which is tha the Complaint at least insofar as malicious prosecution has to fail because there is probable cause demonstrated for Mr Epstein to have filed or at least have reason to believe that he could file properly file the claim that he did file that he THE COURT Is probable cause always a legal purely legal determination MR BREWER No No If there are questions of fact that are involved with the probable cause the questions of fact are for the determination of the jury The jury the judge then takes those determinations of the jury to make a finding of probable cause But it is in the at the end of the day the court w.phippsreporting.com the issue of probable cause is a matter of law for determination by the court 1s I But the threshold for establishing 267probable cause in a civil action is really rather low Because it is whether the defendant could have reasonable what the what the defendant could have reasonably believed at the time of asserting the claim So I want to go briefly through what Mr Epstein knew or was available to him at the time November/December of First undisputed Mr Edwards was a partner at the Rothstein firm Its also undisputed and it had been admitted by Mr Rothstein that this firm was the front for one of the largest Ponzi schemes in Florida history At the time Mr Edwards was the lead attorney for three cases that were being brought by the Rothstein firm against Mr Epstein During the litigation there were numerous discovery attempts which appeared to be unrelated to those and that was trying to get flight manifests take depositions of people who may have been on flights on Mr Epsteins planes some very very prominent names And these things were w.phippsreporting.com escalating during that time period And it was very very strange In late November of there was an explanation as to why those things were going on And the Rothstein firm imploded And there was a complaint that was brought by Bill Scherer I believe down I dont know if it was Broward County or Dade County THE COURT Yeah Im familiar with all that I remember that day Do you remember that day Mr Edwards MR EDWARDS I remember it like yesterday MR BREWER In any event he filed a complaint on behalf of a group of investors that we refer to as Razorback And if I can find it Here we go One of allegations in the complaint in Razorback was additionally Rothstein used RRAs representation in the Epstein case to pursue issues and evidence unrelated to the underlying litigation but which was potentially beneficial to lure investors into the Ponzi scheme THE COURT You five out of the six of you know me very well and I always am very receptive to argument You guys know that The w.phippsreporting.com only one is Ms Haddad I think Im not sure if we met before But I just feel like the probable cause aspect just carries with it too many factual issues for me to rule as a matter of law so I dont think that I can grant relief on the probable cause issue vel non So if you will please move on to MR BREWER On that note because I was I will close THE COURT Okay Thank you very much Mr Brewer MR BREWER No I will close by THE COURT On that issue MR BREWER I will close on that issue THE COURT Very well MR BREWER But I would like to close by quoting a very prominent attorney THE COURT Sounds like a plan MR BREWER This is something that was before Judge Crow And it begins out of the attorney saying Tab Levin vs Middle Levin vs Middlebrook is the Tab No Judge Crow says I read it a thousand times w.phippsreporting.com The attorneys says 273Yes sir I sure you have THE COURT You have to give it to me again though ATTORNEY I will be happy to do that THE COURT This deals with the litigation privilege The attorney then goes on to say Yes sir it does deal with litigation privilege Echevarria also deals with the litigation privilege Delmonico stands for the proposition that the issues with regard to privilege are some issues of law for the court to determine And I provided Your Honor with highlighted copies Im providing opposing counsel with highlighted copies as well THE COURT Okay THE ATTORNEY Basic point here Your Honor is that the litigati9n privilege is an absolute privilege Once it is established that the actions occur within the course and scope of the litigation the privilege applies absolutely as a matter of public policy The basis of those decisions that if theres misconduct in the course of litigation w.phippsreporting.com if youre talking about improper discovery if youre filing improper motions there are remedies that are available to the court through the courts inherent power to control its own litigation through the contempt powers of the court through Florida Statute and through the filing of bar grievances And it will cripple the system if litigants are obligated to respond to separate litigation just because somebody has alleged you noticed the deposition that shouldnt have been noticed You filed a motion that shouldnt have been filed That prominent attorney is Mr Scarola THE COURT In an unrelated case MR BREWER In this case In this case when they were arguing that Mr Edwards was entitled to the litigation privilege with regard to Mr Epsteins complaint THE COURT Okay Who Off the record for a minute Discussion off the record THE COURT Okay Mr King please MR KING Thank Your Honor William King and Jack Scarola Your Honor for Mr Edwards who is seated with us at the table w.phippsreporting.com May it please the Court THE COURT Please MR KING In light of the Court ruling on the probable cause issue I am not going to get into all of the facts with which we did not have an opportunity to identify in detail Ill simply say to the Court that there still exists the issue of the bona fide determination they have not raised here today And so the submission of the facts that we have submitted that weve prepared for you would bear on that unless they have likewise because of factual disputes theyre basically taking the position that is no longer thats no longer an issue either for purposes of this summary judgment Pursuant THE COURT Let me stop you Mr King so that youre not confused by my preliminary statements to Mr Brewer And that is that the global issue thats covered by as Mr Brewer puts it the trilogy of cases the Levin Echevarria and now this Wolfe case is not being disposed of or is not being ceded by Mr Brewer here Theyre still claiming that both counts are covered by the Wolfe Levin and Echevarria cases w.phippsreporting.com My statement is only if in fact those cases are and now the Wolfe case which is now in my view on point relative to both abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims globally if that case for some reason doesnt cover that then the elements of the malicious prosecution claim are off the table In other words I would not grant the motion because of at least those two reasons that is that I believe that there are questions of fact related to the probable cause issue as well as the bona fide determination issue additionally MR KING And I understand the Courts ruling in that regard THE COURT Okay MR KING My only point was they raised in their initial brief an issue of whether there was a bona fide termination That likewise is very fact specific THE COURT I agree and thats why I want to make clear that that standing alone the elements of the malicious prosecution claim as opposed to the abuse of process claim which I will handle separately will not muster in summary judgment in my view w.phippsreporting.com MR KING Thank you Then let me focus then on the litigation privilege Judge since thats the key issue that the Court is dealing with today THE COURT Thank you MR KING It is our position that a conflict currently exists with regards to the issue whether the litigation privilege bars a malicious prosecution claim And I have cited to the case Olson vs Johnson So2d the Second DCAs opinion in after both Levin and Echevarria And it holds that malicious prosecution claims are not barred by the litigation privilege Then you have Wolfe that stands in contradistinction to that which holds that it does Although as Ill point out in a few moments one of Judge Shepherd in his concurring opinion doesnt he doesnt rely on that on that theory Our position is that Olson vs Johnson sets forth the accurate and more persuasive proposition that is that it does not bar a malicious prosecution claim Even though Olson vs Johnson dealt with complaints by a complaining w.phippsreporting.com witness in a case that only resulted in a malicious prosecution claim leading to a wrongful arrest doesnt the facts of the case itself do not go so far as to address issues of what happens once a civil complaint is filed But the proposition that that Olson states is unequivocal that is the litigation privilege does not apply to malicious prosecution Now when we get to Judge Sassers opinion which I submit in all of the cases that have been cited by everyone Judge Sassers opinion is the most cogent most well-reasoned and rejects those very propositions that two judges in the Wolfe case adopt So let me let me just suggest to the Court THE COURT Which Judge Sasser Im trying to figure out which one you are talking about MR KING That is the decision in bear with me Judge THE COURT No problem MR KING That is the decision in Johnson vs Libow a Westlaw in THE COURT Okay MR KING It is concise Its to the w.phippsreporting.com point And Ill address that in just a few moments THE COURT All right Thanks MR KING Now whats interesting about Wolfe and whats almost inexplicable about Wolfe is that it ignores its own prior precedent by Judge Cope in his concurring decision in Boca Investors Group vs Potash So2d THE COURT That was a concurring opinion MR KING Yes that was his concurring opinion THE COURT Okay MR KING Of course as you know Judge Cope is very well-respected and his opinions are very articulate but it also ignores a Third DCAs full panels decision in SCI Funeral Servcies Inc vs Henry So2d at Note Third DCA opinion in both of which both Judge Cope and the panel in the SCI case note that the Supreme Courts citation in Levin to Wright vs Yurko which I cited in the memorandum which was a Fifth DCA decision back in implicitly recognizes that is the Supreme Court itself implicitly recognizes that malicious prosecution claims are not subject to the litigation w.phippsreporting.com privilege And if you read Wright vs Yurko you read Judge Copes concurring opinion and you read the panels footnote in SCI one should not come up with any other conclusion other than thats what the Supreme Court did So you have Wolfe standing in contradistinction to its own to its own precedent which they dont address at all in Wolfe and it stands importantly in contradistinction to the Supreme Courts own position on that on that doctrine I I would dare say that the Third District will always stand alone on that proposition Any other district court which is going to undertake this issue will not follow that ruling And the Supreme Court itself if it ever gets on the certs jurisdiction will not either Other courts have likewise commented that the litigation privilege would not bar a malicious prosecution claim I have cited you to the decision of Judge Corrigan in North Star Capital Acquisition LLC vs Krig F.Supp.2d M.D Fla another decision that was decided after Levin and Echevarria And the court in that case discussed let me just for a moment w.phippsreporting.com here Well the bottom line is Judge Corrigan commented about the litigation privilege and stated that neither malicious prosecution nor abuse of process would be barred by the litigation privilege I have also cited the Cruz vs Angelides the Middle District of Im sorry So2d Second DCA which also suggests that malicious prosecution would not be barred by the litigation privilege But as Ive indicated the most cogent and well articulated opinion on this subject is Judge Sassers opinion in Johnson vs Libow She expressly revoked the arguments that are raised by Wolfe which arguments of course are opposed by the assertion in Olson The court noted the following and these are the very compelling reasons why Wolfe would not apply to a malicious prosecution claim As she said Levin involved actions taken during the course of proceedings and as you remember what Levin was that was a situation where there was a motion to disqualify counsel Then ultimately when they didnt call counsel w.phippsreporting.com they filed a separate interference claim and the court barred that on the litigation privilege But the court stated that when youre dealing with the malicious prosecution lawsuit its fundamentally different It involves the filing of a baseless action against a defendant And the purpose of a malicious prosecution action is to prevent vexatious prosecution or litigation The purpose of the litigation privilege she stated expressly is not to preclude the tort of malicious prosecution And if the litigation privilege was applicable to the filing of a suit the tort of malicious prosecution would not survive And as the Court is well aware the malicious prosecution has been recognized as its an ancient tort in Florida Its always been around The Supreme Court has addressed it in the past specifically And one cannot lightly accept the proposition that the Supreme Court which itself has indicated implicitly indicated at least that the litigation privilege would not bar a malicious prosecution claim That the Supreme Court itself would not adhere to the those rulings and overturn a century of law recognizing the tort w.phippsreporting.com of malicious prosecution We also submit that Wolfe is distinguishable because the litigation privilege was applied to the attorneys in that case The attorneys were involved and I need not go over all of the facts of the case but it was a very very brief involvement by the lawyers As I suggested in the brief lawyers may end up being given a broader immunity under the litigation privilege because of their obligations to th ir clients to carry out their legal and ethical responsibilities And the facts of that case are somewhat compelling in that the attorneys who make a brief appearance shouldnt be exposed to all of this Maybe their maybe the thought process was something along the lines well we dont want to put the attorneys through this This should be cut out right at the beginning TBE COURT Off the record for one second MR KING Yes Discussion off the record MR KING And I cited the Taylor case which was a Supreme Court of Idaho decision which discusses that issue and which shows that for w.phippsreporting.com those very reasons that I identified lawyers should have a greater opportunity to opportunity to seize upon immunity which would cut off their liability early on So whether its a qualified immunity or absolute immunity discussed in that decision whatever perhaps that was the a factor or although they don cite to Taylor but maybe thats a factor in Wolfe THE COURT I guess I understand your position that youre taking in terms of in the Wolfe context because as I indicated to Mr Brewer during his argument the court made it a point to indicate the very brief involvement of the Kenny Knachwalter firm But since I did ask question off the record Ill indicate what I did ask was whether or not Mr Epstein was represented at all times material to the allegations now made by Mr Edwards And Mr King has answered in the affirmative Im having difficulty then with trying to reconcile why the claim was only brought against Mr Epstein as opposed to his attorneys especially where the emphasis has been made quite strongly that despite the settlements that went on Epstein essentially himself as related to the w.phippsreporting.com court was the guiding influence here in proceeding against Mr Edwards in a for a for a time period.that you believe is actionable MR KING Well one response without going into the entire tortured history of Mr Epsteins actions and the various machinations that he undertook the initial complaint which charged Mr Edwards with all sorts of horrific crimes fraud perjury conspiracy to commit perjury securities fraud general fraud extorsion all all specific crimes that were alleged against him the lawyers who were involved in that case withdrew They abandoned those claims Well we cant ask them why but I submit that what happens is the evolution of that case then becomes a case involving merely I shouldnt say merely abuse of process abuse of process So one response is that a situation that that you that is sort of suggested by perhaps the court in Wolfe and in desiring to protecting lawyers who recognize what happened and then get out of the case They realize that whatever they were told by their client and we submit that for example w.phippsreporting.com the attorneys would not necessarily know what Mr Epstein had in his mind We know what Epstein had in his mind because I have outlined somewhat in the papers here the huge amount of evidence accumulated by not only Mr Edwards but the federal government by the state government which showed that not only was did he abuse Mr Edwards clients repeatedly from the time they were and years old he was abusing girls as young as years old He was having he was having orgies on his airplane one of those indications that they may have had reference to in their papers and earlier made reference here about why was discovery pursued by Mr Edwards But they the lawyers are just not A theyre not sued Thats not a situation that we re facing here THE COURT I know that MR KING And for the very reasons that Taylor talks about its just unwise it seems to me to pursue lawyers in a case where you may know inside whats going on with Epstein and why hes doing what hes doing And thats a fine line that the lawyers have to face in every case when do I step out w.phippsreporting.com The original lawyers in this case did step out And those claims were all abandoned And I think that speaks volumes All of that of course goes in part to the issues of malicious prosecution which we would ultimately argue if I had to get into those facts I hope that answers your question I mean Epstein stands in our from our standpoint in a completely different position than the lawyers at this stage of the proceedings despite the fact that after he settles the claims he then continues to pursue the allegations And to us your review of the size of those settlements would have an impact on all of the issues not on this particular issue that we re talking about now But if we had to get into those facts and the court took a look at what those settlements were in camera then we would believe that that would be thats a strong indication that all of this stuff that he seized upon that Edwards seized upon MR BREWER Excuse me Your Honor Motion For Summary Judgment is supposed to be something that is in evidence and in record and its not THE COURT Yeah I have no plans on w.phippsreporting.com reviewing the size of the settlement amounts They dont phase me at all And I I dont it seems since they agreed to be confidential I think we should respect that MR KING And I understand and since were not even discussing these and I may be going further than what your concerns were about the lawyers involvement in the case and why they wouldnt be sued in a case like this THE COURT What Im saying is I can understand both sides argument But on the one hand its interesting that the line of cases here on this immunity issue often bears on the facts of the cases Meaning the most repugnant they take theres a more liberal approach The Wolfe case where the Kenny Knachwalter firm abandoned the claims immediately there a more conservative approach And I tend to tended tended to notice that while I was reviewing the cases which is understandable certainly But the the what I said about both sides is yes I can see in a situation where the attorneys quickly abandoned the case theres the indication that a claim would not lie However where I where I have the representation made w.phippsreporting.com without controvert that Epstein was represented throughout the process so to speak even after the settlements were effectuated but represented nonetheless by counsel I can also see the other side where it could it could weaken the argument that Epstein would be at the control so to speak MR KING Well it its our position that the mass of evidence which we have some of which I just outlined reflects that Mr Epstein seized upon a convenient situation the RRA implosion to use that as a sword against Mr Edwards And it became it was personal with him and he knew that the allegations against him by not only his own clients were true And as you know ultimately what happens is the attorneys dismiss the case on the eve of the Motion For Summary Judgment And Mr Scarola corrects me I wasn in in those the earlier stage but he indicates that two sets of lawyers got out THE COURT Thats okay Thats fine MR KING But in any event then on the eve of the summary judgment motion we submit that the last set of lawyers gets out because they w.phippsreporting.com withdraw those claims or dismiss those claims because they are faced with the knowledge that they couldnt uncover one iota of evidence that Mr Edwards was guilty of anything His name never appeared in the public in any public documents were filed They took his deposition for days They have never been able to uncover one piece of evidence that would remotely suggest that he was involved So the bottom line is I really probably have gone further than the Court THE COURT No not at all MR KING and I apologize for that THE COURT I just want to give you a ten-minute warning now but MR KING All right THE COURT Dont these cases though teach us that essentially no matter how repugnant the judicial conduct process the conduct during the judicial proceedings I should say no matter how far repugnant the conduct during the judicial proceedings may be as long as they are within the judicial proceeding there is this immunity that exists particularly for an abuse of process claim w.phippsreporting.com The malicious prosecution claim I am more on the fence But on as far as the abuse of process claim is concerned and theres that balancing that is taken into account that I believe its talked about primarily in the Levin case about the full disclosure within the lawsuit venue versus someone facing liability because of what may be alleged in a complaint or during a deposition or something along those lines As long as its within the judicial proceeding and again no matter how repugnant it may be is there not this immunity afforded by the appellate courts that would extend at least to the abuse of process claim And tell me if not why not please MR KING We acknowledged in the memo that both in the Third and the Fourth in the Fourth in the American National Title Case both applied the doctrine to the abuse of process claim The full import of how far that will go because each of those cases again involved lawyers But the question is Will that in the future because again that tort abuse of process has been around a long time But the American National case was And also the LatAm case which was a precursor to Wolfe on that w.phippsreporting.com issue the litigation privilege and the abuse as it applied to the abuse of process that case was cited by Wolfe So you had you had some rational prongs that Wolfe could latch onto in terms of the issue of the application of litigation privilege to abuse of process And we would distinguish it on we would distinguish those cases based on the fact that lawyers only were involved We would also maintain that that THE COURT I guess Mr King what it comes down to is shouldnt lawyers know better than the litigants themselves And again if I would be a bit more receptive to your argument if I was told Epstein filed these documents prose Because he is at least you know to a degree an educated individual He has a background I believe in finance So you know there could be those facts that could be developed within his educational purview within his experience purview within his own personal vendettas that he may have with Mr Edwards But again shouldnt lawyers know better The lawyers are continuing this plight on behalf their client Why is Epstein the one who is the w.phippsreporting.com focal point of this abuse of process claim MR KING And again I would go back to the role that lawyers have in walking that ethical line walking that legal line walking the line where they have to advance their client cause as best they can And when it comes to that point where they recognize that no these claims are false theres no basis for us to proceed then they get out And now as I advised two firms did that before The last firm came in and dropped their dropped those claims on the eve of summary judgment So one to me as I shouldnt say that To to Mr Edwards in this particular case we see a clear distinction And that distinction is you dont go after the lawyers for these claims if you recognize that there is a that they have acted within the bounds of arguably of their ethical responsibilities and legal responsibilities to their client They have to zealously advocate for him But that doesnt excuse him That doesnt excuse an individual who over all those years were committing those heinous acts against not only Mr Edwards clients but w.phippsreporting.com many many others THE COURT But those heinous acts as have you communicated and I wont take a position one way or the other on the acts but Im just picking up on what you just said but they have nothing to do with this case itself on the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution They just simply dont I mean you may suggest to me that they have something to do with them from the standpoint of Epsteins dissatisfaction with the settlement or whatever may have been attributed to that but they really have nothing to do with these claims MR KING Well with the litigation privilege I will acknowledge other than what I have already argued the situation was different wherein in for example Wolfe he had the brief appearance by the lawyer and Judge it was Judge Shepherd in his concurring opinion didnt embrace that What he said was Look theres two elements and malicious prosecution doesn even exist here Lets get rid of it THE COURT Right MR KING I would just suggest that the facts that I have outlined and which we have in w.phippsreporting.com all of the materials that we submitted to you all of those facts are they they do go to the other issues that you arent addressing here the factual issues on good faith and the factual issues on bona fide termination And so with that reservation I would suggest that the only other reason why these facts are so significant is because anybody sitting a court sitting back and looking at the landscape here would have to ask themselves look in light of for example Judge Sassers opinion and the reasons why we have malicious prosecution claims and why they would survive is because of something just like this And Im getting back to the litigation privilege and malicious prosecution I really have ended my comments on that but I just wanted to address your concerns about why all of these facts might impact THE COURT No Go right ahead MR KING And those facts impact because what it does is it cries out and it shows you that this is hy a malicious prosecution claim should survive the litigation privilege When you have a torrent of evidence that hes comitted these acts and that he knows that the attorney for those w.phippsreporting.com clients has acted appropriately and at every stage he was involved before he ever got associated before Mr Edwards ever got associated with RRA and he continued them on after he did it He does pro bono work for clients as you know in the federal case He knows that Epstein knows that And thats why the facts are important to malicious prosecution claims because as Judge Sasser says the idea here the concept here on a malicious prosecution claim is this is this is the kind this is why the privilege shouldnt apply because the vexatious prosecution of a claim is something that the law will recognize And everything that we have put into the record about Epsteins involvement shows that this use of that lawsuit was a pretext And that he had every evil motive in the world to pursue these claims and continue those claims after Mr Edwards settled those claims Mr Epstein settled those claims So my only other comments is to try to address your concerns vis-a-vis the issue of abuse of process Thats more difficult Its more difficult because we have the Fourth opinion and w.phippsreporting.com the Thirds precursor opinion so it it it clearly is problematic We our our position on it is essentially this Judge Corrigan in his opinion in the case that I cited says the privilege shouldnt apply either Then you have what we submit are egregious facts which should including a settlement and he continued prosecution afterwards which we submit it is going to be the lights going to go off and say Whoa wait a minute we cant we cant count this the application of privilege in the context of these facts Your concerns are legitimate and well expressed No matter how egregious the facts perhaps that wont make a difference to the application of the privilege to to an abuse of process claim perhaps But we submit for the reasons that we have identified that the litigation privilege should equally not apply to the abuse of process claim for those reasons THE COURT Malicious prosecution MR KING Okay Well certainly to malicious prosecution But also your last concern w.phippsreporting.com THE COURT Your position is I think it does apply to abuse of process MR BREWER Right MR KING But certainly not malicious prosecution for the reasons that are well-articulated by Judge Sasser and others And with regard to the reasons Ive just expressed to the abuse of process claim And make sure I didnt miss anything THE COURT Three minutes to wrap up MR SCAROLA And Im going to use two of them if I may Your Honor THE COURT Any objection MR BREWER Yes Your Honor They re not allowed to split This is not you know a rebuttal on their part THE COURT I agree MR BREWER So theyre not allowed to split it MR SCAROLA May I have just a moment THE COURT Absolutely Take your time But I do believe that protocol would dictate only one attorney speak to the issues MR KING Right THE COURT Thank you w.phippsreporting.com I have Judge Sassers opinion I have it right here or I should say her order as opposed to the opinion MR KING All right You have that And just to wrap up then Judge with regard to the comments in Levin about the other the availability of other remedies that are that would exist against attorneys if the you know if the privilege were not applied to the attorneys as in Levin there are a myriad that the court has Much more difficult when it comes to an individual And I I think there was one other comment made Let me just double-check my notes Counsel had referenced the abuse of process claim and whether the facts support the abuse of process claim We submit from that standpoint they do Weve satisfied all of the elements They they and the last comment Ill make here is their focus was you cant have an abuse of process claim based upon the pursuit of all of these actions that were taken during the course of the proceedings And we submit that under the circumstances of this case where this claim was commenced against Mr Edwards during the course of his prosecution of the underlying claims w.phippsreporting.com and while multiple other claims were being pursued against him that under those circumstances the abuse of process claim does survive a challenge to whether or not we have satisfied the elements The process thats involved in the abuse of process claim is the lawsuit The subsequent actions that all of the cases talk about are in our case the pursuit of all of those efforts during the course of the of that case And they were all done for an ulterior motive Weve satisfied those elements I dont have the time to get into all of the facts I tried to give you the essence of what we had by citing to the statement of undisputed facts Mr Edwards affidavit the materials relating to the filing of our motion for punitive damages which was granted We gave you the depositions because unfortunately to really grasp the entire background on this you almost have to read the entire depos I tried highlighting and pulling them out for you but I couldnt really do that So I apologize THE COURT No thats okay MR KING But that would end my argument I appreciate your courtesy w.phippsreporting.com THE COURT Thank you and Mr Brewer for your MR BREWER A few moments Your Honor THE COURT Sure MR BREWER I forgot to ask you if I could address you from the chair here rather than the podium THE COURT Thats fine No I wanted to thank Mr King and Mr Brewer for their initial arguments and I appreciate very much the professi nal MR BREWER Your Honor you seemed to be a little bit more troubled with regard to the malicious prosecution aspects here Id like to point out to you that in the case the Wolfe case specifically they stated because the law is clear that the litigation privilege applies to abuse of process we affirm the trial courts order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants below as to that cause of action Although the law is not as clear whether the litigation privilege also applies for the cause of action for malicious prosecution we conclude that it does and affirm the trial courts order finding that the litigation privilege also applies to a w.phippsreporting.com cause of action for malicious prosecution That was actually the issue before them because it had already been determined that the litigation privilege applied to the abuse of process in both the Third and the Fourth District Courts of Appeal Thats admitted by the counterclaim in their motion in opposition I wanted to speak about this idea that the worst the actions were of Mr Epstein and/or his attorneys that somehow or another theres a sliding scale And if you worked longer on the case or if you put in more pleadings or whatever that somehow or another that would have an effect Thats not something that I have seen anyway in the trilogy of cases In fact what is said in the trilogy of cases is if the litigation privilege applies its an absolute privilege Absolute The Olson vs Johnson was mentioned to you to say that to indicate that the that malicious prosecution can still survive and exist And in fact the Olson case which was a case in which three ladies accused this guy of stalking filed a false police report The guy got arrested Actually I think Im not sure if he went to w.phippsreporting.com trial but he was able to establish that he was six miles away at the time of the alleged stalking And the ladies just lied to get him in trouble The Olson case was addressed in the Wolfe case and it said Wait a minute that is a cause of action for malicious prosecution will stand there because that was an action that was taken outside of the judicial process TBE COURT And that and thats you know where you know Ill ask Mr King to briefly address this as well But you know the dilemma the court has here is the language that is reaffirmed in Wolfe and extracted from the Echevarria matter from the Florida Supreme Court And they quoted and say that Echevarria reaffirmed the proposition and Im using my own words by saying the proposition that quote absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding And they clarify that although not all statements made outside of the formal judicial process are protected by the litigation privilege an absolute immunity applies to conduct occurring during the w.phippsreporting.com course of the proceedings So that seems to tell me that if Epstein is filing a complaint if Epstein is seeking discovery if Epstein is making obnoxious allegations against Edwards and I again not taking a position one side or the other thats why I using the word if to preface all of my commentary as long as it has some relation to the proceeding it is afforded absolute immunity If youre sitting in my shoes Mr Brewer or better yet sitting in Mr Edwards shoes what would be his best argument to defeat your motion on malicious prosecution MR BREWER I dont know that they have one Your Honor in light of Wolfe Not at this level THE COURT Is there anything that you can fathom as an officer of the Court that they are claiming Epstein did in either the abuse of process or the malicious prosecution claim and as I said Im more concerned with the malicious prosecution claim that Epstein did outside of the judicial proceedings Is there anything alleged here that he did outside of the judicial proceeding such as I saw in the damages w.phippsreporting.com portion of the argument made by the Edwards side and I think it may have had some relation to Judge Crows questions about damages relating to Mr Edwards some that but I saw that there were that Mr Edwards felt there was some threat to his or to him and his family Has there been any such threats made to your knowledge by Mr Epstein that would have gone to him or his family MR BREWER Your Honor Im late to the game I was not a participant or counsel here until oh probably three or four months ago I have done my best to familiarize myself in what has gone on prior but its voluminous And so I cant swear to you that Ive read everything or seen everything I however have no knowledge of Mr Epstein making any threats to towards Mr Edwards THE COURT Im just using that as an example MR BREWER Well I dont have any knowledge of him making threats to Mr Edwards or to his family THE COURT Anything outside of the judicial proceeding as potentially or allegedly w.phippsreporting.com obnoxious And as Mr King brought out earlier the allegations being horrifying egregious no matter how you might identify those allegation that were quickly withdrawn anything that you re aware of that went on outside of the judicial process that is being alleged here MR BREWER Not that is being alleged here Your Honor no THE COURT Mr King anything that being alleged here that goes outside of the broad spectrum that I have read into the record that has its genesis in Echevarria and was quoted by the Wolfe Third District Court of Appeal opinion MR KING Theres nothing alleged Mr Edwards testimony though was that he was being stalked by an investigator which gave him the additional concern But thats not specifically alleged as a matter that you know that forms the basis for the malicious prosecution or the abuse of process claim Its not specifically set forth in the pleadings THE COURT How do I get around this Echevarria language Again I recognize whats gone on here but personal empathy doesnt have any part in a courtroom It just doesnt and w.phippsreporting.com shouldn I ruled in your favor and Ive ruled against you Ive ruled in Mr Goldbergers favor Ive ruled against him Ive ruled in favor of Mr Edwards claims and contentions Ive ruled against him But Im just having difficulty coming away from the reaffirmation of the Florida Supreme Courts blanket statement here that absent extra judicial activity everything that is occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding is subject to absolute immunity MR KING If I may THE COURT Absolutely MR KING Levin neither Levin nor Echevarria dealt with the malicious prosecution claim which is really what Im going to focus on now THE COURT But now Im dealing with and again forgive me for interrupting but just to make clear the precedential value that I have to ascribe to Wolfe and as you indicated the Fourth in its case seems to at least from the abuse of process part of the matter align itself with that same side The Third District Court of w.phippsreporting.com Appeal is an appellate court that I must follow unless theres a specific ruling to the contrary by the Fourth District Court of Appeal And the Third is crystal clear in its analysis Whether you or I agree with it is not for me to say But its analysis is abundantly clear and it again reaffirms the Supreme Court language that talks about where were within the judicial proceeding as repugnant as it may be as long as it bears relation some relation just let this be the rather broad language utilized by the Supreme Court of Florida absent extrajudicial process extrajudicial actions better stated I left with this legal analysis while cogent its clear while short its clear MR KING But that is why all of the positions that I have articulated that would suggest that Levin nor Echevarria would apply to a malicious prosecution claim because it is distinctly different from the nature of just as Judge Sasser says Its not something that is going on during the course of proceedings It the proceeding itself Now thats what Wolfe Wolfe takes the position otherwise It says Well that that w.phippsreporting.com clearly falls within the privilege THE COURT And Wolfe is the binding precedent With all due respect to my suite mate shes not And you know as a fellow circuit court judge again her opinion is meticulous and well-written but it flies in the face of precedential value here and that is the Wolfe case that ties the bow so to speak around the malicious prosecution case Where there may have been before something to hang ones hat on the probable cause issue as I described before clearly a factual issue Whether the case ended in a bona fide termination in favor of Mr Edwards subject certainly to factual review But that but the elements are taken away from us in my view from a trial courts decision-making and were left with the global analysis that was rendered by the Third District Court Of Appeal And the bow is tied to include malicious prosecution cases as long as those actions as alleged and conceded by you and I appreciate incredibly the concession but as conceded that all of the allegations contained in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint relate to the judicial w.phippsreporting.com proceeding in some form MR KING If I may Judge just a final conclusionary remark THE COURT Absolutely Please MR KING I would harken back to the impact of Olson which even though it does not deal with a post-civil complaint issue such as you have here the language of the opinion is the litigation privilege does not apply to malicious prosecution There is we submit that that sets forth at least a conflict on that issue that allows you to then peruse all of the issues that I discussed THE COURT Let me look at that Olson case specifically please MR BREWER I have a copy here if you would like Your Honor THE COURT No You have both done an excellent job in tabbing all of these materials and I want to again compliment both sides on their presentations and their performance as well as well presentations Its extremely gratifying especially when Ive had I think hearings in addition to the today to see the kind of advocacy that Im seeing here at this hearing w.phippsreporting.com But I will take a quick look at that Tab that I have Thank you The Olson case that is cited in and Ive read somewhat quickly but I believe Ive picked up the genesis And the import of the opinion deals with prelitigation statements made by an individual who is accusing Olson of stalking And the court distinguished that claim privilege from a defamation case that was addressed in a case called Fridovich vs Fridovich So2d Florida Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court was presented with a certified question of whether a person who makes statements to law enforcement about another individual prior to the instigation of judicial proceedings And that is important here I think in our review of the case since those statements that were made allegedly by the accuser in Olson were made prior to the instigation of judicial proceedings and whether those statements were protected by an absolute privilege for liability against defamation and the court held that defamatory statements voluntarily made by private individuals to the police or to the States Attorneys Office before institution of criminal w.phippsreporting.com charges are presumptively qualifiedly privileged And such voluntary statements are treated differently than statements made under the State Attorneys investigatory subpoena which are encompassed within a judicial proceeding and thus are absolutely privileged So there is that distinguishing characteristic here as well And again the issue was met head on by Wolfe It was not discussed in the Olson case respectfully that I can gather here So based on the Third District Courts decisions in Wolfe quoting in large part from the Florida Supreme Courts decision in Echevarria whereas here all of the allegations made in both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim as conceded by the Edwards side are acts occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding and bear some relation to the proceeding the Court has no other alternative than to grant the motion on both counts MR BREWER Your Honor _I have prepared an order which I think fairly closely it does not have in it about the conceding the points but it does grant the motion based upon the cases that you have just indicated w.phippsreporting.com THE COURT I would ask you to kindly go ahead and order the transcript and track the language that I have tried to utilize here distinguishing Olson as well in following the Supreme Courts directive in Echevarria and the Third District Court of Appeal dictates in the Wolfe case MR BREWER Yes Your Honor THE COURT Thats the cornerstone of the Courts decision Again thank you all very very much for your input and your professionalism and your arguments No one could have done a better job on both sides So thank you very much MR BREWER Thank you Your Honor THE COURT Thank you Madam Court Reporter THE COURT REPORTER Thank you Your Honor Thereupon the proceedings were concluded at p.m w.phippsreporting.com STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH COURT CERTIFICATE I Robyn Maxwell Registered Professional Court Reporter State of Florida at Large certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes Dated this 29th day of January RPR FPR CLR REALTIME SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATO w.phippsreporting.com A abandoned able absent absolute absolutely abundantly abuse abusing accept accused accuser accusing addressed addressing acknowledge adequately acknowledged adhere Acquisition act acted action actionable actions activity acts addition Administrator ADMINISTR admitted adopt advance advised advocacy advocate affidavit affirm affirmative afforded aforesaid afternoon ago account additional agree accumulated additionally accurate address agreed ahead airplane align allegations alleged allegedly allowed allows alternative amended amendments American amount amounts analysis analyzed ancient and/or Angeli des answer w.phippsreporting.com answered answers anybody anyway apiece apologies apologize apology apparently Appeal Appeals appearance APPEARAN appeared appearing appellate applicable application applied applies apply appreciate approach appropriately arguably argue argued arguing argument arguments arrest arrested articulate articulated ascribe asked aspect aspects begins asserting background behalf assertion bad associated balancing attempt believe bandied attempts bar ATTERBUR attorney BARNHART believed barred beneficial attorneys best bars based better Attorneys baseless Bill attributed Basic binder Australian basically binding authorized basis bit availability blanket Beach available Board Avenue bear Boca aware bona bears bed bono began bottom back beginning Boulevard w.phippsreporting.com bounds bow Bradley Brewer brief briefly broad broader brought Broward Brown call called charges coming camera Chester comitted Capital circuit commenced care circumstances comment clarification carries cause citation commentary clarify carry cite commented case cited clear comments commit causes citing clearly committing civil client communicate caveat claim compelling ceded clients complained century complaining certainly clients complaint close CERTIFICA certified closely certify CLR certs cogent complaints chair complete claimed cold challenge completely claiming COLEMAN changed compliment claims come cases characteristic conceded comes charged conceding w:phippsreporting.com concept concern concerned concerns concession concise conclude concluded conclusion conclusionary concurring conduct confidential conflict confused confusing conservative conspiracy contained contains contempt contentions counterclaim context continue counts continued continues County continuing course contradistinct contrary control controvert court convenient courtesy Cope Courthouse Copes courtroom copies courts copy courts cornerstone correct correction cover correctly covered corrects cries Corrigan crimes counsel criminal cripple count Crow w.phippsreporting.com Crows Cruz crystal current currently cut Dade damages dare DATE Dated dates day days DCA DCAs deal dealing deals dealt decided __ decision decisions decision-maid defamation defamatory defeat defendant defendants defended defenses degree Delmonico demonstrated denied DENNEY depos deposition depositions described desiring discussed Dixie despite doctrine discusses detail documents discussing determination doing Discussion Donald determination dismiss double-check determine dismissal dropped determined dismissed due determining disposed developed disputes earlier dictate disqualify dictates dissatisfaction early difference distance easier different distinction Echevarria distinctly distinguish differently distinguishabl difficult distinguished difficulty educated distinguishing dilemma Education district directive educational disclosure Edwards discovery division w.phippsreporting.com effect effectuated efforts egregious either elements embrace empathy emphasis encompassed ended enforcement entire entities entitled Epstein Epsteins equally escalating especially espoused ESQUIRE essence essentially establish established establishing ethical eve event everybody evidence extrajudicial family extremely far evil fathom evolution face favor exactly faced example facing federal fact excellent feel excuse fellow factor felt exist facts fence exists fide experience Fifth explanation figure exposed factual file expressed expressly fail filed extend fairly extension faith extent falls filing extorsion false extort familiar final extra familiarity finance extracted familiarize find LL w.phippsreporting.com finding fine firm firms first five FL Fla flies flight flights Florida focal focus follow following footnote foregoing forever forget forgive forgot form formal format forms Fort forth found four fourth Fourths FPR fraud Fridovich front full fundamentall Funeral further hand GOLDBERG handle future Goldberger handled F.Supp.2d good hang government happened game grant happens gather general granted happy genesis granting harken getting grasp hat girls gratifying head give greater headed grievances hear given group heard global guess hearing globally hearings guiding go heinous guilty held guised Henry guy highlighted guys goes highlighting going Highway Haddad history Hafele w.phippsreporting.com holds i Honor hope horrific horrifying hour ours huge I Idaho idea identified identify ignores immediately immunity impact E;lif impeachment implicitly imploded implosion import important importantly improper inappropriate include including incredibly independent indicate indicated indicates indication indications individual individually individuals inexplicable i:r Jeffrey influence jgoldberger information job inherent involvement Johnson initial involves initiation JR involving input JSX searcyl iota inside judge irrelevant insofar issuance instigation issue institution interesting interference interrogatorie judges interrupt judgment interrupting issued interruption issues interview judicial intimida investigations investigator investigatory Jack investors January involved cc w.phippsreporting.com juncture I jurisdiction jury Kenny key ldnd ldndly King I Knachwalter knew know knowledge known knows Krig ladies lady Lakes landscape language large largest LatAm latch late latest Lauderdale law lawsuit lawyer lawyers lawyers lead leading learned left legal legitimate length lets level Levin liability liberal Libow lie lied light lightly lights likewise line lines litigant litigants litigation little LLC LM long longer look looked looking low lure Mabie machinations Madam maintain making malicious w.phippsreporting.com mandate manifests mass mate material materials matter matters Maxwell mean Meaning memo memorandum mentioned merely met meticulous Middle Middlebrook miles mind minute minutes misconduct misstating moment moments Monday months motion motions motive movant move multiple muster myriad M.D name names National nature near necessarily necessary need neither never non North note noted notes notice noticed November November/De number numerous objection obligated obligations obnoxious occasions occur occurred occurring Office officer oh okay old Olson once ones one-half operative opinion opinions opportunity opposed opposing opposition order orgies original outlined outside w.phippsreporting.com overturn PA package page Palm panel panels papers part participant participants particular particularly partner pending people performance period perjury person presentation police personal presentations policy presented probably professional persuasive Ponzi presumptively problem professionalis peruse portion pretext problematic prominent phase position prevent procedural picked prongs primarily proceed picking pronouncing prior proceeded piece positions properly proceeding place post-civil private proposed Plaintiff Potash privilege proposition plan potentially planes power propositions plans powers proceedings prosecute pleading precedent prosecution pleadings precedential preceding please preclude process precursor plight preface podium prejudice point preliminary privileged prelitigation pro prepared points probable w.phippsreporting.com protected protecting protections protocol protracted provided providing public published pulling punitive purely purpose purposes Pursuant pursue pursued pursuit purview put puts P.A p.m qualified qualifiedly question questions quick quickly quite quote quoted quoting raised ran rational Razorback read reading ready record reaffirmation refer reaffirmed reaffirms realize really Realtime reason reasonable reasonably reasons rebuttal receptive recognize recognized recognizes recognizing reconcile reference referenced referencing ref erred reflects regard regards Registered rehearing rejects relate related relates relating relation relationship w.phippsreporting.com relative relief rely remark remedies remember remotely rendered repeatedly report reported Reporter representatio represented repugnant reservation respect respectfully respective respond response responsibilitie resulted review reviewing revoked rid right Roberts Robyn role Rothstein RPR RRA RRAs rule ruled ruling rulings Sasser second SHIPLEY shoes Sassers securities short see satisfied showed save shows seeing saw seeking side saying seen seize says sides seized scale seminal signed Scarola sent significance separate significant separately signifies scheme Servcies simply schemes set sir Scherer sets sitting SCI situation scope settled SCOTT settlement six se settlements size SEARCY sliding seat settles somebody seated Shepherd somewhat w.phippsreporting.com sorry sort sorts Sounds South So2d speak speaks specially specific specifically spectrum split stage stalked stalking stand standard standards standing support standpoint strong supposed strongly stands Supreme takes stuff talk Star subject state talked submission talldng submit stated sure talks statement submitted Taylor survive statements subpoena teach subsequent swear tell states sued sword tend States suggest sworn tended status system ten-minute Statute suggested Systems termination statutory suggesting stenographic suggests Tab terms stenographica suing tabbing testimony step suit table thank stood suite tailor stop summary take strange Thanks Street taken rd w.phippsreporting.com theory thing things think Third Thirds thought thousand threat threats three three-week threshold tied ties time times timing Title today told TONJA tonja tonjah torrent tort tortious torts tortured touch track transcript I treated trial tried trilogy unequivocal view unfortunately violations trouble United Virginia troubled unrelated vis-a-vis true volumes untrue try voluminous unusual trying voluntarily unwise voluntary turn use vs two utilize utilized value ulterior various ultimately vel wait uncover vendettas walking underlying venue want understand versus vexatious understandab viable wanted understands victim undertake warning victims undertook wasnt undisputed victims way w.phippsreporting.com Wbk searcyl wcblaw aol.c weaken i WEISS Welcome well-articulate well-reasoned well-respected well-written went West Westlaw Westlaws were weve i whatsoever Whoa William withdraw withdrawn withdrew witness Wolfe word words work worked world worst wouldnt wrap Wright written wrongful Yeah year years yesterday young Yurko zealously 6th 29th 15th 7th w.phippsreporting.com 9C i
75,979 characters
