Epstein Secrets

[email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the quest

[email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the quest

[email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the Case

[email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger

ment invocations are valid. It is for the court, not the claimant, to determine whether the hazard of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court must make a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the Case

st.com Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/12/2010 Page 6 of 6

ion, and he exercised that right. He was given every opportunity to substantiate his claims of privilege before the Magistrate Judge. See U.S. v. Argomaniz 1 Nothing in Defendant’s Motion indicates that he seeks to submit in camera evidence that

Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz ah

of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court