Epstein Secrets

itness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (ci

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

witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (c

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

incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citi

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

might incriminate him Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 2 of 10 - 3 in future criminal proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded “liberal construction i

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

provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction

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

provides, in relevant part, that "[tic) person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in

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

nd provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 ( 1 1 th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal constructi

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. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pros

put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings? Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing 2 EFTA00592192 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 3 o

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

criminate him 2 EFTA00728617 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction

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