Epstein Secrets

Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: 561 697 2383 Counsel for Plaintiffs. day of January 2010: Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax: 561 835 8691 Co-counsel for D

unsel for Plaintiffs. day of January 2010: Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250

d. (Emphasis in original). 22. In reversing the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal noted that "the trial court's error was in reading Perlman expansively to allow a punitive damages claim in each instance when fraud is alleged, instead of only when a reasonable evidentiary basis has been

se of sheer embarrass- ment," he said. "But she very much looked 14. Any prudent man would have had second thoughts about that." Defense attorney Jack Goldberger maintains that not only did Epstein pass a polygraph test showing he did not know the girls were minors, but their stories weren't credible. The

the Palm Beach County Jail early July 23 and released hours later. Epstein's legal team 'doesn't dispute that lie had girls over for massages," Goldberger said. But he said their claims that they had sex- ual encounters with him lack credi- bility. "They arc incapable of being believed' he said, They

the sane goals and concerns. But what tiey don't share is the same style in which to handle city staff In an effort to defuse assuip; lions that Perlman always ace 'th Levinsoris scolffing Perlman has started to clear tb air with seven months to go in hisixa; year legit For the fiutith doart mayor,

portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, except for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger — have been redacted"). 10 EFTA00583789 address Mr. Epstein's arguments regarding the recognition of a privilege under Fed. R. Civ. P. 501. As

ttorneys, except for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger — have been redacted"). 10 EFTA00583789 addr

ncerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of

rrespondence written by 3 EFTA00584605 government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, except for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger — have been redacted"). Once the CVRA action was re-activated — after plaintiffs had successfully pursued their civil monetary remedies against Mr.

torneys, except for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger — have been redacted"). Once the CVRA action was

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), and, contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009),