Epstein Secrets

ll counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. e 800 ounse or amt 12 Counsel for Defendant Jeffity Epstein Respectfully submi

AN-2008 32 IDEPO - DEPOSITION Filing Date: 31-JAN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (NOTICE OF) FILED BY J. GOLDBERGER 32 A I MEP() - ORDER MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE Filing Date: 06-FEB-2008 I Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: F

of 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbury Goldberg

MOTION Filing Date: 02-JAN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: i AGREED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - FILED BY J. GOLDBERGER I I http://courtcon.co.palm-beachltus/p1s/jiwp/ck_public qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?c... 8/4/2009 EFTA00233526 - Not an Official Document

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

11 of 11 Garcia Law Firm, P.A. FL 33401 aa,bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 aH pens ith.net ti3ZFunsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully su

t al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. West P

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply the judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 F isidrogarcia(a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 ch, FL 33401-5012 Fax jaqesaabellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defe

a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

bert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Respectfully submitted, ASP etu

Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

st Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff 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

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

nic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 23nd day of April, 2010: EFTA00611610 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 0S-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 10 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defen ant Je rey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No.

No. 0S-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 10 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defen ant Je rey Epstein Brad

ional principles against retroactivity. Further supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

wing service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this 22nd day of April, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL aurae or a ntri in e ate

CF on this 22nd day of April, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Bra

th by Defendant, Plaintiff describes EFTA00611594 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 6 the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 58-2382 josefsberglanodhurst.com [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff 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

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

ne W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff 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

x: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply