Epstein Secrets

n a federalist system of parallel state and federal courts, federal courts should not intrude on matters properly assigned to state court judge. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996). The state court judge will, of course, have the actual summary judgment motion in front of him that Edwards wi

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma

a federalist system of parallel state and federal courts, federal courts should not intrude on matters properly assigned to a state court judge. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996). The state court judge will, of course, have the actual summary judgment motion in front of him that Edwards ha

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma

n a federalist system of parallel state and federal courts, federal courts should not intrude on matters properly assigned to state court judge. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996). The state court judge will, of course, have the actual summary judgment motion in front of him that Edwards wi

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma