Epstein Secrets

486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth

ED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

eedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citin Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is also available to those who claim innocence. One of the Fifth Amendment's

ODCIKNOM03712 En 1'€10 ikaPRPFAftikW54/4/(1809 Pander)! !24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Ti

force, Inc. v. Alden Personnel, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 513, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 16, 21 Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F.Supp.2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 14 Krepps v. Reiner, 588 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 7 Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 590 (N.Y. 1992) 22 McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D

. 1993) 11 Williams v. Burns, 463 F.Supp. 1278, 1282 (D. Colo. 1979) 9 Yuan v. Rivera, 1998 WL 63404, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 1998) 12 Zerr v. Johnson, 894 F. Supp. 374, 376 (D. Colo. 1995) 16 EFTA00595587 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 15 Filed 12/01/15 Page 6 of 29 INTRODUCTION The Plaintif

e unprotected assertions that anything in the computers is incriminating as a precondition to asserting the act-of-production privilege. See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001)("[W]e have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwis

executed on October 20, 2005. Attached hereto as Exhibit R-1 is a true and correct copy of the warrant application and the warrant signed by Judge Johnson. Among the items that I was authorized to search for and seize was: (1) Computers, including any electronic magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or