Epstein Secrets

m - 5 - SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger [email protected] /s/ Jeffery M. Herman Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Docum

ourt, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger jagesq@

copies of the summons and complaint resided at the residence, then service would have been valid under Florida or Federal law on May 7, 2008.2 See National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp., 930 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding service of process on housekeeper of defendant’s New York

are presently pending criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in Palm Beach County relating to such allegations, in which Mr. Epstein is represented by Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. (See Herman Aff., Exhibit “A” hereto ¶¶ 3-5). The Defendant’s receipt of notice of this lawsuit is based on correspondence and communication

fendant’s receipt of notice of this lawsuit is based on correspondence and communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Goldberger, regarding both the criminal case and this civil case, and the extensive press coverage of the instant lawsuit when it was filed in February, 2008,

. In other words, it was the defendant’s burden to show that the cook did not reside in his home, and he failed to meet that burden.3 Id. See also National Development Co. v. Triad Holding Corp., 930 F.2d 253, 256-58 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding service on the defendant’s housekeeper, where the defendant, like Defendant

are presently pending criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in Palm Beach County relating to such allegations, in which Mr. Epstein is represented by Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. See Herman Aff., Exhibit "A" hereto 3-5). The Defendant's receipt of notice of this lawsuit is based on correspondence and communications be

fendant's receipt of notice of this lawsuit is based on correspondence and communications between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's attorney, Mr. Goldberger, regarding both the criminal case and this civil case, and the extensive press coverage of the instant lawsuit when it was filed in February, 2008,

017. In other words, it was the defendant's burden to show that the cook did not reside in his home, and he failed to meet that burden? Id. See also National Development Co. I. Triad Holding Corp., 930 F.2d 253, 256-58 (2d Cir. 1991) (upholding service on the defendant's housekeeper, where the defendant, like Defendant