Epstein Secrets

L 33301 By: TONJA HADDAD COLEMAN, ESQUIRE ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By: JACK GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT(S): nvNNEY, gCnvOLA, ot—aL 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 By: JACK SCAROLA, ESQUIRE P

any claims currently pending against Epstein, direct claims, brought by any of the alleged victims? MR. BREWER: I think not. No, your Honor. Mr. Goldberger knows better than I. But he's indicating not. THE COURT: Okay. And so, Mr. Goldberger, your understanding of the claims that are PALM BEACH REPol

forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

FL 33301 Counsel for Plaintiff Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Co-Counsel 16r Defendant Jeffrey

ty, UT 84112 Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

nderlying wrong of continued childhood sexual abuse brought against the Archdiocese did not allow for recovery under RICO). Finally, even Florida's Fourth DCA confirms that in order to have a claim for RICO, there must be damage to "business or property." Petrol. LTD. v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th

y Epstein Jack A. Goldber er, Es uire Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue S, Suite 1400 We

esponse in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action