Epstein Secrets

edly privileged documents to a government agency, as part of efforts at cooperation. For example, in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Court addressed "whether a party that discloses information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the wo

eir work product waived any claim of privilege. Id. at 1008 (emphasis added). Indeed, Edwards' clients made this argument in their Answer Brief to the Eleventh Circuit! See Excerpt of Ans. Br. in Jane Doe I v. United States, Exhibit at pp. 35-36. Edwards' contrary legal argument now is nothing more than presently

xhibit B, at 35-36. Edwards supported this last statement with the following authorities: See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1429 (3d Cir. 1991) (Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department during an investigation "waived

dwards' clients' Appellee Brief filed in that case, attached to this Notice as Exhibit B. In Jane Doe No. 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Epstein's former counsel had waived the work- product privilege with respect to documents sought by Edwards' clients, after having voluntar

of Deverso's fellow inmates, Michael Lewis ("Lewis"), testified that Deverso admitted that he had been involved with two underage girls in Manila, Philippines, during his relationship with his "fiancee" Beverly. Lewis also stated that De- verso admitted that the disks belonged to him but that he intended

they strongly corroborate Spurlock's criminal intent to entice the girls. See United States v. Jonsson, 15 F.3d 759, 761 (8th Cir.1994). We join the Eleventh Circuit in noting that 2. Spurlock's claim that his contact with "Mary" did not constitute statutory rape or statutory sodomy under Missouri law is be- si