extension of immunity is in furtherance of the policy underlying the doctrine.”); Moses, 549 A.2d at 957 (“While it is true that immunity from civil liability in judicial proceedings has been applied most frequently in defamation actions, many courts, including those in Pennsylvania, have extended the immunity from civil liability to other alleged torts when they occur in connection with judicial proceedings.”); Thompson v. Sikov, 340 Pa.Super. 382, 490 A.2d 472 (1985) (applying absolute privilege to bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim). However, we note that the absolute privilege does not apply to bar Dr. Green-berg’s abuse of process claim, which we discuss, infra. Freundlich & Littman, LLC v. Feierstein, 157 A.3d 526, 535, 2017 WL 712911, at *7 (Pa. Super. 2017) (<HOLDING>). Before addressing that issue, we add one
holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings holding that judicial privilege does not apply to the appellants claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings