Epstein Secrets

ivileges and from the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The transparent purpose behind Epstein'

rivileges contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence, any such privilege must be strictly construed." University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (internal quotations omitted). While Epstein's lawyers do not cite the controlling legal standard for creatin

t principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth, Adidas v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11ih Cir. 2007), citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)( privileges are in derogation of the search for truth and should not be lightly cr

ze a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself," University of Pennsylvania v E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S. Ct. 577, 582,107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990)(declining to recognize common law privilege protecting academic peer revie

rtown, Mass. Dimitri Simes, Political Scientist, Nixon Center For Peace And Freedom Edward Slingerland,

ist, Lecturer, ColumbiaUniversity Andrew Meltzoff, Psychologist, Co-Director, UW Inst. Learning & Brain Sciences Hugo Mercier, Cognitive Scientist, University of Pennsylvania Cindy Meston, Psychologist, University of Texas Thomas Metzinger, Neuroscientist, Johannes Gutenberg University Jean-Baptiste Michel, Quantitative