Epstein Secrets

ant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." See generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)). See also, United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U

all pertain to the negotiation and eventual entering into of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida. See part I above herein. Again, the constitutional issues raised in Defendant's response permeate these discovery requests. The full te

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

hern District of Florida. However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with gni protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders (e.g., 9 EFTA00222450 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2

laimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.' generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 9 EFTA00222533 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948,

as long as the USAO determines EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida continues presently and through late 2010. 6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to declare that the agree

23240 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 6 of 22 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

rranted. In a federal companion case, Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRPJJOHNSON, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, United States Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson found, "[i]n 2008, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United St