Epstein Secrets

80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscay

in of a crime. (DE 242, p. 18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 2 Case 9:

D Docket 04/09/2010 Page 14 of 15 Service List Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected]

he privilege raised as to these requests valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to 'genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5 th Cir. 1980). (DE 462 at p. 10-11) Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that this court made the correct ruling relative to

w.com Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard 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-

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

EREBY CERTIFY that a true 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. Jack Alan Goldberger Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Pa

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

fendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Ad

y threatening questions" which could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). b. The District Court Judge Court Should Reverse or Modify The Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 242) Relative to I

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. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, F

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

80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscay

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

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. Attorneys for Plaintiff 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami,

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

EREBY CERTIFY that a true 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. Jack Alan Goldberger EFTA00222107 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v.

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