Epstein Secrets

Fowler White Burnett 4, ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 15, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE SAND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Re: Espstein v. Rothstein, et al

Fowler White Burnett 4, ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 15, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE SAND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Re: Espstein v. Rothstein, et al Our File No.: 80743 Espirito

ubstantial and imminent threat to a fair trial in Epstein v. Edwards. In Florida, a court may take steps to protect against pretrial publicity. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348 (1966); Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watson 615 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The limitations imposed by the

oregoing was sent via U.S. Mail this y ay of April, 2011 to: Marc S. Nurik, Esq., One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy, Denney & Scarola, P.A., 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, P.O. Drawer 3626, West Palm Beach, FL 33409, Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire

ce for much of that Article's information is Jack Scarola, Esq., counsel for the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards. 2. In fact, Mr. Scarola is quoted to have said the following: EFTA00599554 CASE NO, 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMI1 AC; a. "We would be very keen to speak with Prince Andrew

Miami Herald Publishing Co, v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904, 910 (Fla. 1976). Cowls in Florida may take steps to protect against pretrial publicity. See Sheppard v - 2 - EFTA00599555 CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 X:OO:MB AQ Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 161. Ed. 2d 600 (1966); Sentinel Communic

Fowler White Burnett )p, ATTORNEYS AT LAW -'"" March 17, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE (561) 686-6300 AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Re: Espstein v. Rothstein, et al

wler White Burnett )p, ATTORNEYS AT LAW -'"" March 17, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE (561) 686-6300 AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Jack Scarola, Esq. Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Re: Espstein v. Rothstein, et al Our File No.: 80743 Espirito

ubstantial and imminent threat to a fair trial in Epstein v. Edwards. In Florida, a court may take steps to protect against pretrial publicity. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348 (1966); Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watson, 615 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The limitations imposed by the

w.palmbeachdailvnews.com on October 15, 2010, entitled "Claim: Epstein Filed Lawsuit to `Intimidate' Attorney Edwards Prosecuting Sex Abuse Cases," Jack Scarola, Esq., counsel for the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, was quoted as stating: I) "The sole motivation for these claims against Mr.

CASE NO. 50 2009 CA 040800 XXXXMB AG Involved in a Civil Suit with a Lawyer." (Exhibit 4). The source for much of that article's information is Mr. Scarola, who is quoted to have said the following (Id.): a. "We would be very keen to speak with Prince Andrew, given his relationship with Jeffrey Epste

cretion to control and prohibit such extrajudicial commentary and pretrial publicity in order to insure that Mr. Epstein receives a fair trial. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966); State ex. reL Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904, 910 (

w.palmbeachdailvnews.com on October 15, 2010, entitled "Claim: Epstein Filed Lawsuit to `Intimidate' Attorney Edwards Prosecuting Sex Abuse Cases," Jack Scarola, Esq., counsel for the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, was quoted as stating: I) "The sole motivation for these claims against Mr.

a New Criminal Investigation and is Involved in a Civil Suit with a Lawyer." (Exhibit 4). The source for much of that article's information is Mr. Scarola, who is quoted to have said the following (Id.): a. "We would be very keen to speak with Prince Andrew, given his relationship with Jeffrey Epste

cretion to control and prohibit such extrajudicial commentary and pretrial publicity in order to insure that Mr. Epstein receives a fair trial. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966); State ex. rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904, 910