Epstein Secrets

Jonathan Capehart, who wrote a mea culpa column in the Washington Post on March 16, 2015 entitled "'Hands up, don't shoot' was built on a lie." Like Clarke, Capehart is a black man, but similarities seem to end there; Capehart is a liberalleft Democrat, commentator for MSNBC, columnist for the Post, an

riots that followed throughout the country. "The 'hands up, don't shoot' lie was propagated by every mainstream liberal media across this country," Clarke said. "The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC, all propagated that 'hands up, don't shoot' lie. It

e level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401, 244 U.S. App. D.C. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney- client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis

vilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis , 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp. , 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank , 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White , 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir. 1991). In his motion, Epstein

ry Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

ee arrangements reached with that client," including the amount paid for legal services and the form of payment) EFTA00223008 (citation omitted); Clarke, American Commerce Nat'l Bank , 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992) ("the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the identification of payment

ury Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege