Epstein Secrets

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberg®podhurst.com kezell®podhursicom 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

ell®podhursicom Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

ention of the Er Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex crimes that he allegedly committed between 1955 and 1973. While the original three-year statute of l

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberg®podhurst.com kezell®podhursicom 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

ell®podhursicom Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

ention of the Er Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex crimes that he allegedly committed between 1955 and 1973. While the original three-year statute of l

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 rjosefsberg®podhurst.com kezell®podhursicom 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

ell®podhursicom Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

ention of the Er Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex crimes that he allegedly committed between 1955 and 1973. While the original three-year statute of l

ert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orsecic, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Fax• 105 15R-910 Counsellor Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 FL 33401-5012 Fax• 561-R15-R691 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E

Fax• 105 15R-910 Counsellor Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

ention of the Er Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex crimes that he allegedly committed between 1955 and 1973. While the original three-year statute of l

est Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] kezell@podhursicom 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

ell@podhursicom Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

ention of the Er Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex crimes that he allegedly committed between 1955 and 1973. While the original three-year statute of l

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

ry, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Ave S. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5015 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Goldberger: Pursuant to the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida hereby provides y

where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime, or made it "greater than it was, when

Post Facto clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes. The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner Defendant was "liable to punishment" under § 2255 before Plaintiff turned 18, but once she attained that age, he no was longer "liable to punishmen