Epstein Secrets

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

ch Gardens, FL 33410 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 08804 Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 Beach, FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein EFTA

y failing to perform or to offer to per- form will suffer forfeiture. Restatement (Second)of Contracts § 241 (1981). In United States v. Fitch, the Sixth Circuit adopted a somewhat more rigorous stand- ard, holding that the government must prove a "bad faith, intentional, substantial omission" on the part o

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

he issue and determined travel is not necessary to sustain such a conviction. In United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a conviction under Section 2422(b) where the defendant sent e-mails proposing oral sex and attempted to set up meetings with minor females

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

damus relief in the court of appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). Relying upon appellate court decisions from other circuits, including Stewart, the Sixth Circuit found that § 3771(e)'s definitional requirement that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proxim

(March 5, 2008) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Before DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,* Judge. DUBINA, Circuit Judge:DUBINA, Circuit Judge: Appellant Donald J. Deverso ("Deverso") ap- peals his convictions for possessing materials in

eral Reporter. Use Fl CTA6 Rule 28 and Fl CTA6 1OP 206 for rules regarding the cita- tion of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert D. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 924435. July 26, 1993. On Appeal from the United St