Epstein Secrets

being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 58-2382 josefsber

costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein's principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstan

vised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transm

4803 ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States I . Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 5.O. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle . United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States'.

vised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transm

costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein's principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstan

ot be a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Furthermore, as to the first item, your colleagues admitted that efforts to reach an agreement with Robert Josefsberg regarding the amount of fees owed have not been completed. Similarly, as to the second itur colleagues admitted that there are no currently pendin

00183849 . The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States I Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United Stalest B

being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberg

07732 ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 4O7, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States

being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of , 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 ijosefsb

13256 ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 4O7, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States

ty of Resider & of First Listed Plaintiff West Palm Beach (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) Attorney's (Firm Nets*. Addrtu. one Tapirs/ Number) Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq./Katherine W. Ezell, F.sq. Podhurst °meek, P.A. My. stein M n NTS e FILED by rp__ D C. County of Residence of First Listed Dcfcriam Unit

33498 ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in I favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle . United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States'.