Epstein Secrets

ll 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. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. e 800 ounse or amt 12 Counsel for Defendant Jeffity Epstein Respectfully submi

AN-2008 32 IDEPO - DEPOSITION Filing Date: 31-JAN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (NOTICE OF) FILED BY J. GOLDBERGER 32 A I MEP() - ORDER MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE Filing Date: 06-FEB-2008 I Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: F

of 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbury Goldberg

MOTION Filing Date: 02-JAN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: i AGREED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - FILED BY J. GOLDBERGER I I http://courtcon.co.palm-beachltus/p1s/jiwp/ck_public qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?c... 8/4/2009 EFTA00233526 - Not an Official Document

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) th

M/ECF on this day of March , 2009: Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H Willits P A tom* Lake Worth, FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq.

FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Pa

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

te would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

llowing service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Leh

M/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counse

3 05 2010 Page 29 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 29 meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

bert 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 Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Respectfully submitted, ASP etu

Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

st Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 58-2382 josefsberglanodhurst.com [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

ne W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

x: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

e: (561) 842-2820 Fax: (561) 844-6929 Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 25

04 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

day of g µ , 2009: Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 33401 west Palm Beach FL Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 01-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully s

t Palm Beach FL Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

9-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 24 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 24 Plaintiff's view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

ne Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re: Subpoenas to JEGE. Inc. and Hyperion Air. Inc. Dear Mr. Goldberger: It was a pleasure speaking with you today. As we discussed, the deadlines for complying with the subpoenas to JEGE, Inc. and Hyperion Air, Inc. ha

ecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonst