Epstein Secrets

ld, 593 F.2d 815 (8th Cir.1979). Importantly, there are no minor Plaintiffs in this matter or the related matters. All are of age. 5. Moroever, I McCormick on Evid., §19 (6th ed.) states, in pertinent part, that: "[f]or two centuries, common law judges and lawyers have regarded the opportunity of cross-

t met the exceptional burden of proving to this court that Epstein should be excluded from her deposition. Plaintiff adopts and incorporates all of Jane Doe 2-S's argument with only one additional argument (i.e., that if this court allows Epstein to attend Jane Doe's deposition it would violate the right o

ending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? (Ex. "A," p.30). Mr. Horowitz - counsel for Jane Does 2-7: Subject to your rulings, of course, yes. (Ex. "A," p.30). *** The Court: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing s

ction request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). The "implicit authentication" rationale appears to be the

... travels in foreign commerce". Thus, facially, an essential proof of any allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) - the statutory precondition alleged by Jane Doe 2 for a 2255 civil damage recovery - includes telephone, cellular phone, e-mail records or other "communications" as a facility of interstate comme

ion or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6 th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the

se 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 11 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, Vs.

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, § 138 (6th Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted

scayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 Title 6, C

l recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. Request No. 9. (Not at is

ion or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)• McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe F

ANE DOE NO. 7, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. / C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRAJJOHNSON Plaintiff, J I-PREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff,

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7

ing these protections meaningless in attempting EFTA00222075 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 2 to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges. See part ILA. herein. I. Defendant E

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted d

scayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 ahorowitzehermanlaw.com Iriveraahermanlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted d

day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Stuart S. Mermelstein Es• Atterbu Goldberger & Weiss P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 ounse or 'e en ant Je rey o- Epstein 14 EFTA00067396 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 15 of 15

ion or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v, Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000)• Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the

of Time to File Response as to 32 MOTION to Strike Reference to Non Prosecution Agreement or, in the alternative, to Lift Protective Order Barring Jane Doe's Attorney's from Revealing Provision in the Agreement by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/29/2009) 05/01/2009 45 r ORDER Granting 4