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 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the quest

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 211 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the quest

BY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boul,~vard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST

ould not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(l)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Thus, absent a stay of this civil action, the USAO would receive

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 210 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2009

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the Case

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 194 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2009

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the Case

the Magistrate Judge’s Orders be denied, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattorney.

ion, and he exercised that right. He was given every opportunity to substantiate his claims of privilege before the Magistrate Judge. See U.S. v. Argomaniz 1 Nothing in Defendant’s Motion indicates that he seeks to submit in camera evidence that

am D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger w

of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court