Epstein Secrets

ffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

ated Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

uired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privile

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. AUerbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 j

for copying, including certain witness interviews. Egg Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relati

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pros

- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

ccordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as product

by the Constitution." DE 480 See Rudy- Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-i

305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

ated Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

d testimony and information that may, directly or indirectly, furnish Plaintiff a clue or link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute him. Rudy- Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution

8-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 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

s is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pr

fft in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

ated Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

quired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privil

orowitz(alsexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-801 J9, 08- 80232, 08-8038~ 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

for copying, including certain witness interviews. See Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relati

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

8-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 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

s is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9 th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of p

unsel for Plaint; In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Pro Rae Vice 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jetty Estein Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. 'a Law Firm P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Rela

381, 08-80993, 08- Pro Rae Vice 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jetty Estein Co-cou

nts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. ao in re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

ROLA: Q. Which lawyers? A. Burman Critton, Jack Goldberger, and a bunch of the others, sir. Id at 116; lin

ys prepare responses to wildly irrelevant discovery in various locations at a minimum, sir. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Which lawyers? A. Burman Critton, Jack Goldberger, and a bunch of the others, sir. Id at 116; lines 8-19. Q. I want as much information as you can give me about this element of damage which you c

l case. In re EFTA00582836 Carp, 340 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 2003); Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). See also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the p