Epstein Secrets

age 5 attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense attorney who

e copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger EFTA00222107 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 33 Clearly, t

d Ropers v. United States, 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usu

ard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ahorowitzehermanlaw.com Iriveraahermanlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jaqeso

in the plea agreement with SA's See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. These al

d, Rogers v. United States 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usu

e copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Stuart S. Mermelstein Es• Atterbu Goldberger & Weiss P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 ounse or 'e en ant Je rey o- Epstein 14 EFTA000673

in the plea agreement with SA's See Exhibit "B" Goldberger Affidavit - EPSTEIN's criminal counsel. These al

d, Rogers v. United States 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usu