Epstein Secrets

in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." /d. (citing Scheuer I Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d

case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) 0FM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) 0FM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease be- Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the -Subtenants"). The Subtenants were add

dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to ter- minate Epstein's lease and brought this

for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain his burden of making a particularized showing to support his

f 22 documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain hls burden of making a particularized showing to support his

f 22 documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)(issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59598, 2007 WL 2333193, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 13, 2007); Yapp v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 229 F.R.D. 608, 619 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2005); Rhodes v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. Civ.A. 4:99--CV-217--H, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25962, 2002 WL 32058462, at *65 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 31, 2002

tible to mistaken perception, leading to erroneous conclusions r135] -- especially when collections of stories are treated as quasi-statistics. See Fisher v. Vassar Coll., 70 F.3d 1420, 1444-45 (2d Cir. 1995). And bias can skew anecdotal evidence, as when only those who feel most strongly about an issu