Epstein Secrets

) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacquainted, and one which might involve a betrayal of the secrets of the gra

an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00211785 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

) ( en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent all decisions of the prior Fifth Circuit court of Appeals decided prior to October 1, 1981. FIThe Supreme Court called this "a novelty in criminal procedure with which we are wholly unacquainted, and one which might involve a betrayal of the secrets of the gra

s an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter I E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00223001 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

ch governs, the law must be obeyed.... United States t Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 102, 9, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). This principle is embodied in the Supreme Courts holding that a new law applies to a case in progress unless applying it "would result in manifest injustice or there is stat- utory direction or il

n 3142 (g). United States . King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). Sciacca (unpublished opinion), Court File No. 03-80164-Cr-Hurley, at pp. 4-5 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 25, 2004). Here, the defendant's blatant disregard of the order of the Florida court regarding his contact with the victim shows his continu

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[tjhe ability to

and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States' Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand iury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Douglas Oil Co. Petrol Stops Northwe

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops North

tempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States. Swinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grandiury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Douglas Oil Co. I. Petrol Stops Northw