Epstein Secrets

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment s

quired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privil

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment

uired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privile

nary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendme

g required to produce or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9 Cir. 2000). Accordingly,

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

s is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pr

17)). “The claimant must be ‘confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce do

elate solely to Defendant’s net worth and are “unrelated to Defendant’s inducement of minors to sexual activity,” ring hollow. See 1 Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the “privilege” against self-incrimination does Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 7

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to piggyback on DE 462 (a similar order), and thus seems to hone in on the "required records" exception f

s is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9 th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of p

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v, Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

nts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. ao in re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

17)). 'The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce

e having a tendency to Incriminate Epstein and would threaten to invade his privilege against being required to produce or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9"' Cir. 2000). Accordingly, finding the sought after information would result in testimonial disclosures that would communica

17)). "The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce

elate solely to Defendant's net worth and are "unrelated to Defendant's inducement of minors to sexual activity,"' ring hollow. See Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does ' See Plaintiffs' Mtn. (D.E. #333), p.7. 7 EFTA00728622 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KA