Epstein Secrets

v. Scalese, 799 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (issues regarding the intent of the parties could not be decided on summary judgment). See also Matthews v. Storgion, 335 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (genuine issue of material 25 EFTA00808050 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502

ck Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, E., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012; and Marc S. Nurik, Esq., Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik,

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs v. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v: Arotin, 19 A.D.3

Clinical Psychologist 1825 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 561 -433-2355 August 16, 2010 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re.: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Si

e process safeguards). Courts evaluating that liberty interest under the procedural due process analysis articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing the private interest affected by state action, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest, and

xander, Psy.D. Clinical Psychologist 1825 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 204 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 August 16, 2010 Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss, P.A. 250 South Australian Avenue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re.: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Si