Epstein Secrets

Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) and Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beac FL 33401-5012 Fax: Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein 4 EFTA00231323 RECYCLED PAPER TO REORDER CALA, 9M-846-9399 EFTA00231324 IN THE CIR

torney's Office — Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, , West Palm Beach, FL 33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office — West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

Office — Southern District, 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, JUDITH STEVENSON AREO, ESQ., State Attorney's Office — West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQ., and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

ileTaixt U.S. Mail to; R. Ainstneter Acosta; United StatesAtIhnt&s Oiglet ;•Soulhorn • !I li. :' • i District; SQ0 S.Austttillati Ave., Ste. 400, West Palen Beach, FL 3,1419 . 11.fiutat . • . .. • r : • • * nit • • 1 ' ;':y i i !I i Illeitaa WiteAtiliffe,IEsq,i, and Judith Stevenson Arco, Rs.q? Stat4!

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian. Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did