Epstein Secrets

ithout violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1

FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

the statutory provision."') ( quoting Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane)) (f

testimony, she was brought by another minor girl (Jane Doe No. 3) to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach home the one time

rimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled incriminations and may be used as e

FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

ithout violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1

FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

f legislative interpretation, and where they often should end it as well, which is with the words of the statutory provision.'") (quoting Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane)) (first alteration omitted). In this case, the plain text of the 2003 statute is both clear and unmist

ersion of 18 U.S.C. §2255, effective 1999 to Jul. 26, 2006, the period of time during which EPSTEIN's alleged conduct occurred, applies to Plaintiff JANE DOE's claim brought pursuant to §2255 in Count II of the First Amended Complaint [D.E. 38]; (2) the version of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in effect when the predic

partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action,

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVID

partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action,

given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that

o "Rock’ no more Alec Baldwin is going from "Rock" to "Rock" as the "30 Rock" star preps for his role in an... Back to Bayside Good grief, Jennifer Garner is such a dork Jennifer Garner may have a body, life and closet to kill for, but every time she does... Watch two minutes from ‘Workaholics’ Comedy

stein's assistants, where he would ask the girl to perform massages and/or various sex acts, for which he would pay her. One victim, who is known as Jane Doe #5 in a federal court lawsuit against Epstein, said she didn't find out about the deal until after it was finalized. She was 15 at the time one of he