Epstein Secrets

est Palm Beach, FL 33401 FAX NO. 5618358691 June 26, 2009 Re; State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: P. JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY ' JACK A.GOLDBERGER JASON! S. WEISS Ulan' CCrtalIWI CrintoorPOI tome., ! MendKr of Now Jersoy A hot Hors On behalf of Mr. Epstein, we strongly object to the propos

RT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & , P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KRETTST.F.12-WAT CO

, whether my client or -- 12 MR. TEIN: Calm down. 13 MR. LEOPOLD: Excuse me. 14 No, I'm not going to allow it. That is not 15 proper. 16 MR. GOLDBERGER: Okay. 17 MR. LEOPOLD: If he wants to say that she's 18 lying after asking it five times and her 19 explaining in great detail, he can do that.

e, Suite 400 latch, FL 401 By: Robert D. Cri o i Jr. Florida Bar Michael J. Pike Florida Bar 31 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 Wes FL 33401-5012 Fax: Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha

FURTHER CERTIFY that on September 25, 2008, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document is being provided by United States mail to: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Michael R. Tein, Esquire Lewis Tein, P.L. Robert D. Critton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Pike, Esquire

ing provided by United States mail to: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esquire Atterburty, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. M

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

ot to remember that it was the court that asked the record to be sealed and it was done during the course of the proceedings: said Epstein's lawyer Jack Goldenberger. Deanna Shullman. another attorney, weighed in as well. Shullman, representing the media and the public's right to see what's in those documents.

nment is doing its job," Post attorney Deanna Shullman said. "There is great public interest in how everybody in this case is doing their job." Goldberger argued that the confidential agreement Epstein struck with federal prosecutors shoukl remain confidential. Included in it, Goldberger said, are

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

h broader fashion," weighing the veracity of wit- nesses and how they may fare under defense attorneys' questioning, he said. Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger, said his client committed no crimes. "The reports and state- ments in question refer to false accusations that were not charged because the Palm

provided some of those V See EPSTEIN, 7B ► • • • EFTA01682741 • Epstein paid girl $300, suit claims • • IP. EPSTEIN from 18 documents to Goldberger. "Jeffrey Epstein did not have sex with this woman," Sanchez said. Herman suggested that Epstein masturbated in front of the alleged victim and

e wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document. Marra ruled "If a specific tangible need a