Epstein Secrets

D Docket 04/23/2009 Page 8 of 9 - 9 - SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein C

mits the Affidavit of his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, who asserts that “the USAO has taken the positi

- incrimination or losing the civil case in [summary proceedings]”). The cases relied upon by Defendant are consistent with these authorities. In Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), the Court stated the rule that a stay is warranted to avoid a situation “where a defendant in both cri

e his privilege against self-incrimination or to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police offic

D Docket 04/23/2009 Page 8 of 9 - 9 - SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein C

mits the Affidavit of his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, who asserts that “the USAO has taken the positi

- incrimination or losing the civil case in [summary proceedings]”). The cases relied upon by Defendant are consistent with these authorities. In Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), the Court stated the rule that a stay is warranted to avoid a situation “where a defendant in both cri

e his privilege against self-incrimination or to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police offic

ed on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 15 Page 14 counsel, he is entitled to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney. See Goldberger Affidavit attached hereto. EPSTEIN's invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments must be upheld for

liability against EPSTEIN. This is inherently unfair and precisely the special circumstances where "in the interests of justice" a stay is required. Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), citing. United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, 23 F.3d 359 (11 th Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was enter

stay is required. Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), citing. United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, 23 F.3d 359 (11 th Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was entered where a Defendant was confronted with issue of waiving his 5th Amendment Privilege or to loose a civil case by way of motion for

s for Defendant Robert Deweese Critton, Jr. [email protected] Michael James Plke Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman Lead Counsel Paul G. Cassell Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Co-Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff Bradley James Edwards Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Lead Counsel Pm Hac Vic

n FLSD Docket 04/09/2009 Page 6 of 14 criminal defense attorneys, Jack Goldberger. Not surprisingly given the seriousness of such allegations, the Goldberger affidavit makes no such contention. Instead, the Goldberger affidavit is carefully worded to assert only that the U.S. Attorney's Office "might con

Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Cam North America, 571 F.Supp.2d 758, 763 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (granting a stay of civil proceedings where civil defendant was incarcerated and awaiting trial on para

mits the Affidavit of his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, who asserts that "the USAO has taken the positi

SERVICE LIST Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON Attorneys for Defendant ritton, Jr. chael James e er & Coleman 33401-2918 Lead Counsel Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West Palm Beach FL 33401-5012 Co-Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff Bradley JaMes Edwards ler Ft. Lauderdale, F

lf- incrimination or losing the civil case in [summary proceedings]"). The cases relied upon by Defendant are consistent with these authorities. In. Ventura v. Brosky 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), the Court stated the rule that a stay is warranted to avoid a situation "where a defendant in both crim

d to assert only that the U.S. Attorney's Office "might consider" various actions to be a breach of the non-prosecution agreement. See Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., at 2 (emphasis added)) This is a far cry from what Epstein's motion to stay asserts — that °the USAO has already claimed that Epstein violat

FLSD Docket 04/09/2009' Page 6 of 14 criminal defense attorneys, Jack Goldberger. Not surprisingly given the seriousness of such allegations, the Goldberger affidavit makes no such contention. Instead, the Goldberger affidavit is carefully worded to assert only that the U.S. Attorney's Office "might con

Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care North America, 571 F.Supp.2d 758, 763 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (granting a stay of civil proceedings where civil defendant was incarcerated and awaiting trial on para

2 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2009 Page 9 of 9 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger. Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein - 9 - EFTA00222594

mits the Affidavit of his criminal attorney, Jack Goldberger, who asserts that "the USAO has taken the positi

elf- incrimination or losing the civil case in [summary proceedings]"). The cases relied upon by Defendant are consistent with these authorities. In Ventura Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Ha. 2006), the Court stated the rule that a stay is warranted to avoid a situation "where a defendant in both crimina

ard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ahorowitzehermanlaw.com Iriveraahermanlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jaqeso

in the plea agreement with SA's See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. These al

liability against EPSTEIN. This is inherently unfair and precisely the special circumstances where "in the interests of justice" a stay is required. Ventura v. Broskv 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), glikg, r United States v. Lot 5. Fox Grove 23 F.3d 359 (11th Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was entered

om Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2918 561-842-2820 561-515-3148 (fax) Lead Counsel Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 835-8691 (fax) jagesq@be

n FLSD Docket 04/09/2009 Page 6 of 14 criminal defense attorneys, Jack Goldberger. Not surprisingly given the seriousness of such allegations, the Goldberger affidavit makes no such contention. Instead, the Goldberger affidavit is carefully worded to assert only that the U.S. Attorney's Office "might con

Gonzalez I. Fresenius Medical Care North America, 571 F.Supp.2d 758, 763 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Ventura Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (granting a stay of civil proceedings where civil defendant was incarcerated and awaiting trial on parall

hian & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Service List in the manner specified by Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Eps

in the plea agreement with SA's See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. These al

liability against EPSTEIN. This is inherently unfair and precisely the special circumstances where "in the interests of justice" a stay is required. Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), citing United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, 23 F.3d 359 (11th Cir. 1994). In Ventura, a stay was entered