Epstein Secrets

judicial statements that are prohibited under this rule." Rule 4-3.6 incorporates the "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard that the United States Supreme Court found to be a "constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the state's interest in fa

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.:

cial statements that are prohibited under this rule." 9. Rule 4-3.6 incorporates the "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard that the United States Supreme Court found to be a "constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending eases and the state's interest in fai

.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, Atterbury Goldb

judicial statements that are prohibited under this rule." Rule 4-3.6 incorporates the "substantial likelihood of material prejudice" standard that the United States Supreme Court found to be a "constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the state's interest in fa

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 Our File No.:

sponsibilities, PAUL G. CASSELL clerked first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-1985) and then from 1985 to 1986 clerked for the United States Supreme Court before serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney EFTA00188845 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,,,,ument 291-10 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 7 Edwa

ber old i,2010 a copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S. Mail and email transmittal to all those on the attached service list. Jack Scarola Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Bamhart & Shipley By: 37 OL No.: 169440 EFTA00188902 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM ,current 291-15 Entered on FLSD L_ Ket 01/21/20

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Go

al counsel's office, the university -- I'm sorry -- the Utah Attorney General's office, Attorney General Reaz * (ph) and other persons there. And the Searcy -- well, Mr. Scarola's law firm, I'm trying to remember -- sorry, Jack, I can't remember the name of all your partners off the top of my head. MR. S

interests of the victim. 774 Having seen the Advisory Committee proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural stan

ainst individuals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA exte