Epstein Secrets

ld this court order production of same after an in camera inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of Mr. Edwards' firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or mid

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pros

ld this court order production of same after an in camera inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of Mr. Edwards' firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or mid

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

f illegal activities, wire taps, and methods by the Rothstein firm while Mr. Edwards had basically been bringing these cases. The investigator, Mr. Fisten, who's mentioned in the Complaint, represented himself as an FBI agent, falsely represented himself as an FBI agent. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Do you ha

l case. In re EFTA00582836 Carp, 340 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 2003); Baxter v. Pabnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976). See also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The Baxter holding is not a blanket rule that allows adverse inferences to be drawn from invocations of the p