Epstein Secrets

m day of March, 2012 to: Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Searc4a Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, FL 33409; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atter:bury, Goldberger & Weiss, PS, 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-502; and Marc S. Nutik, Esq., Law Office

h Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 A

enue, Suite 2 Fort-Lauderdale; FL 33301 EFTA00208204 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 177-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2012 Page 21 of 22 TO A HADDAD, PA nurc Lanaoraate, 33304 May itt; 204 Via:W andtectbmiellail Itik " Searcy enney;etia West Palm gad; 33.40 Re: EnorpziN &Wyk aid peat M

*************** **** Begin forwarded message: From: Tonja Haddad Coleman Date: August 27, 2013 2:51:27 PM EDT To: Darren Indyke >, Jeffre Cc: Jack Goldberger Subject: RE: Privileged and Confidential Epstein <[email protected]> , Fred Haddad < 1:30 or after is better for me. I have a 12:30 appointmen

27 PM EDT To: Darren Indyke >, Jeffre Cc: Jack Goldberger Subject: RE: Privileged and Confidential Epstei

Counsel Defense and Discovery EFTA00384930 5. Can we disqualify Scarola (as per Darren and Jeffrey's request). Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. TONY% HADDAD, P.A. Advocate Building 315 SE 7th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 acsimile The information contained in this transmission may contain privileg

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

al amount. I reject it also because of the presence of the Etchaverria case and the other case that involves the law firm that slips my mind. MS. HADDAD: Levin. THE COURT: The Levin case. So there was language principally used in the Wolfe case -- that's the underlying case that you primarily reli

so those questions are still objected to, unresolved. So, we'll stoppage We will go from there, see what happens. Id. at page 98; lines 13-18. MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, wait a minute. Just one thing... So if we had asked the same questions, he would have raised the same objections, so not only are we going t

put you in a position where you would not have been able to, nor would you have proceeded with questions today. Id. at page 100; lines 20-23. MR. HADDAD: We wouldn't even — no, as long as it's pending before the Court, I saw no purpose in having to reestablish that you were objecting. Id. at page 100

so those questions are still objected to, unresolved. So, we'll stoppage We will go from there, see what happens. Id. at page 98; lines 13-18. MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, wait a minute. Just one thing... So if we had asked the same questions, he would have raised the same objections, so not only are we going t

put you in a position where you would not have been able to, nor would you have proceeded with questions today. Id. at page 100; lines 20-23. MR. HADDAD: We wouldn't even — no, as long as it's pending before the Court, I saw no purpose in having to reestablish that you were objecting. Id. at page 100