Epstein Secrets

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just t

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) t

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00211784 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) te

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00223000 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11 (1976). Most recently„th Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circuit

Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131- Phone: 305-371-6421• Fax 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA01713175 under the teaching of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398 (1976), result in compelling testimony from Mr. Epstein himself, in violation of his right against self incrimi

e: 305-371-6421 • Fax 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlackcom EFTA01713179 incriminating effect". United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); see also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 ("the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the content

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.I I (1976). Most recently, in Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circu

, Komspan & Stum 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131. Phone: Fax • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00178998 under the teaching of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398 (1976), result in compelling testimony from Mr. Epstein himself, in violation of his right against self incrimi

Florida 33131 • Phone: • Fax: • vwov.RoyBlack.com EFTA00179002 incriminating effect". United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); see also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 ("the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the content

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to m

rom Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person ... against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) te

ances, an attorney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher, 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher, the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amendme

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to

use the demanded documents contained incriminating evidence, whether EFTA00222963 written by others or voluntarily prepared by himself.") (quoting Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409-10 (1976); and citing United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984)); In ?V Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum , 1 F.3d