Epstein Secrets

M/ECF on this day of March , 2009: Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H Willits P A tom* Lake Worth, FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 ounse or a en an s Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq.

FL 33461 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. West Pa

as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.

ttorneys for Plaintiff EFTA00599836 SERVICE LIST CASE NO. 502009CA040800)OOOCMBAG Jack Scarola, Esq. Sears Denne Scarola et al. est am eac i, Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik Es . Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Fanner Ja

Sears Denne Scarola et al. est am eac i, Jack Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, PA West P

torney and pursuant to this Court's instruction today, hereby files this Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority. This filing contains the following United States Supreme Court Cases: Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) and Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951), which were referenced by undersigned at today's

Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 allir3eac 3401 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of

Drive, Suite 400 West Palm 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Austral

ng which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court