Epstein Secrets

ested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. ate United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly auth

uthern District of Florida . However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., DE 462), complaints in these related matters allege that Epstein both resided in and

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly aut

rranted. In a federal companion case, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRPJJOHNSON, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson found, "[i]n 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United St

ho is being sought by Indian authorities on a money-laundering charge, said PNB's arguments fall short. The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in U.S. v. Hubbell band the Southern District of New York's 2015 decision in SEC v. Forster Scut against the notion that he must be more cooperative, like compiling a

ught by Indian authorities on a money-laundering charge, said PNB's arguments fall short. The Supreme Court's 2000 decision in U.S. v. Hubbell band the Southern District of New York's 2015 decision in SEC v. Forster Scut against the notion that he must be more cooperative, like compiling a "privilege log" that would

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled 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 9:0

all pertain to the negotiation and eventual entering into of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida. See part I above herein. Again, the constitutional issues raised in Defendant's response permeate these discovery requests. The full te

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, fa where production would 2 EFTA00222443

hern District of Florida. However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with gni protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., 9 EFTA00222450 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled 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

as long as the USAO determines EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida continues presently and through late 2010. 6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to declare that the agree

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see ado Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

as long as the USAO determines EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida continues presently and through late 2010. 6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to declare that the agree

ty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response to the subpoena" but is instead "the testimon

00 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA01713171 In approximately January 2007, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida initiated what was termed a "parallel" investigation to determine whether the conduct in which Mr. Epstein had allegedly engaged violate

rty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimo

cayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: • Fax • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00178994 In approximately January 2007, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida initiated what was termed a "parallel" investigation to determine whether the conduct in which Mr. Epstein had allegedly engaged violate