Epstein Secrets

kenbach, Esq. Rachel J. Glasser, Esq. LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Ste. 301 h, Florida 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. KITERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue S., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein 30 Marc

ida 33401 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. KITERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250

e final hearing without objection. No one argued they were not ready for trial, but simply argued a technical violation of rule 1.440. On appeal in Labor Ready, the defendants argued that the Rule 1.440 violation entitled them to a new hearing. This Court rejected the argument, noting that the defendants'

er LLC o- ounse or ee nt ounter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Marc S. Nurik . Nurik yard, Suite 700 01 Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbur , Goldber er & Weiss, P.A. Suite 1400 01 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein VIA U.S. MAIL ONLY The Honorable

1 Counsel for Defendant Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbur , Goldber er & Weiss, P.A. Suite 1400

this Court's Labor Ready decision as the controlling precedent governing his authority to deny Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket. Labor Ready, though well-decided, is both distinguishable and inapplicable to this case. First of all, Labor Ready was a final appeal, not a mandamus proceedin

00 01 ounse or e e nt Scott Rothstein Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Suite 1400

raises no objection to the noncompliance." [e.a.] Id. at 1055 (quoting Parrish, 505 So. 2d at 648). The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Labor Ready. First, Epstein did not waive the error by appearing at trial without raising an objection. See id. Again, Epstein adamantly voiced his objection b