Epstein Secrets

chard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 356 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2009

nected to a crime. A Fifth Amendment privilege can only be properly asserted with respect to “genuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). Epstein’s concern appears to be not that he will be prosecuted for having money in a bank, but rather that thi

e copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counse

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable w

Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Dated: April 20, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MER

vilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court’s knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, where this narrow exception

frey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horo

tein of a crime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 5. As detai

ordered to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Dated: April 20, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. At

rivilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States,. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States'. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, where this narrow exception sho

ue copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ahorowitz(hermanlaw.com Irivera hermanlaw.com Counse

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable wh