Epstein Secrets

s District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

red by the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxp

Bradley J. Edwards SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hil

Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton

red by the courts to be ‘required records,’ are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.” Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). Third, the m

tein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.150 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA’s § 2255 Provision Relating t

e change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein’s local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts “did not fit the proposed state charge,” and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with

stricts, Whitley had served as Acting Associate Attorney General, the Department’s third-highest position. 170 On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter