Epstein Secrets

ez, Fowler White Burnett, Miami, FL; (5) Jack A. Goldberger, Goldberger & Weiss, West Palm Beach, FL; and (6)

Miami, FL; (3) Gerald B. Lefcourt, Law Office of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C., New York, NY (4) Lilly Ann Sanchez, Fowler White Burnett, Miami, FL; (5) Jack A. Goldberger, Goldberger & Weiss, West Palm Beach, FL; and (6) Joe D. Whitley, Alston & Bird, Washington D.C.; as well as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

e United States in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has l

r cases were still under investigation. Tr. July I I, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 42. On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, reflecting continuing efforts to keep the NPA secret: 19 EFTA00177027 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48

the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jack Goldberger, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, reflectin

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler'. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no crim

tein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.150 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA’s § 2255 Provision Relating t

e change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein’s local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts “did not fit the proposed state charge,” and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with

trical protection be available for the decision not to charge.” Id. at 41 (emphasis in original). Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that an agency’s decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not reviewable unde

were already pending against lender in bankruptcy adversary proceeding. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 23(bX3), 28 U.S.C.A. ARGUED: Daniel P. Shapiro, Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Gil- bert Scott Bagnell, Bagnell & Eason, L.L.C., Columbia, South

e faced this issue have held that language-based classi- fications are not the equivalent of national origin classifications. See Soberal-Peres v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), art. denied, — U.S —, 104 S.Ct. 1713, 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Frontera v Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1