Epstein Secrets

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. hid. Dec. 8,2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They are: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilots who report incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.

ges. It was at that point (at a minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects

(11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For 4 Interestingly, in In re Stewart, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the CVRA "does not limit the class of victims to those whose identity constitutes an element of the offense or who happen to be identif

ssing the concept in the context of the attorney-client privilege); Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641, 643 (S.D.F1a.2007) (same); Peterson v. Wallace Computer Servs., Inc., 984 F.Supp. 821 (D.Vt.1997) (same). And all other privileges and protections can similarly be waived. II. The Go

r protections. I. Work-Product Protection, as Well as Attorney-Client Privilege, Can Be Explicitly or Impliedly Waived. Case law from this Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all make clear that work product protection can be waived — indeed, such protection can be waived "impliedly." A very thorou

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They are: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilot reports of incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. S

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They are: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilot reports of incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. S

ges. It was at that point (at a minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects

8 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For Interestingly, in In re Stewart, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the CVRA "does not limit the class of victims to those whose identity constitutes an element of the offense or who happen to be identif

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied reliefunder the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They are: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilots who report incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges

pen exchange of information to promote significant private and public interests. They arc: the decision of Judge Marcus, before he was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit, denying discovery and recognizing a privilege for airline pilots who report incidents and violations, In Re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.