Epstein Secrets

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fift

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request here is more broad in nature than the requests made by Jane Doe seeking only personal tax returns (i.e., this request here seeks or may seek production of information related not only to Epstein's personal tax re

ted not only to Epstein's personal tax returns but also to any alleged tax returns filed by any businesses in which Epstein has an interest in - and Jane Doe 2-8's Request for Production attached as Exhibit "A" does not define what tax returns they seek). Although page 3 of DE 426 seems to connote Plaintiff

reement [2] Leach argues that the government's advocacy for the § 4B1.5(a) enhancement breached the plea agreement. The government stipulated that Leach's base offense level was 24, but the enhancement, if applied, would have increased Leach's offense level to 34. Leach further contends that becaus

ommerce to attempt to persuade, induce, and entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). In sentencing Leach, the district court declined to apply enhancements advocated by the government under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a) or, alternatively, under § 4B1.5(b). Leac

ages of a prepubescent fe- male known as Jane Doe. Images of this young girl had been found on several individuals' computers and were labeled with Jane Doe's actual name. NCMEC analysts used this information to locate the girl in Indianapolis, Indiana. Law enforcement officials interviewed Jane Doe. Sh

Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d49!, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Cou

________ / Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With

ate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Request for Production Plaintiffs claim that the "act of production doctrine" does not encompass reque

dment privilege must be sustained as it has correctly been applied relative to similar requests throughout this litigation. For example, Plaintiff (Jane Doe) also sought Request for Admissions dealing with Epstein's "financial history," "net worth," "fraudulent conveyances" and "real- estate ownership."

Accordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). See supra. Questions seeking "testimony" regarding financial assets or transactions would, if answered, ri

08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 ------------------'/ DEFENDANT'S, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S, JANE DOE, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS (DE 98) Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, hereby files his Response in Opposition to Pla

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover, the act of production itself may implicitly communicate statements and, for this reason, the Fift

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

lau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover

EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S, JANE DOE, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUES

te." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Add new case from my e-mail of yesterday: (Court in Englebrick v Worthington Industries Inc 670 F Supp2d 10

ocket entries. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth t

ccordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial

or Plaint/ff in Related Case No. 08-08804 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@b