5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
of incrimination is justified. United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991). “A court
Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill
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
District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike MPike@bclc
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
District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike MPike@bclc
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
District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike MPike@bclc
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
District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike MPike@bclc
Entities connected to both Argomaniz and Isidro Manual Garcia

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSONMichael J. Pike
PERSONJack Goldberger
PERSON
Adam D. Horowitz
PERSONRobert D. Critton
PERSONJack Patrick Hill
PERSONRichard Horace Willits
PERSONKatherine W. Ezell
PERSON
Salt Lake City
LOCATIONRobert C. Josefsberg
PERSONStuart S. Mermelstein
PERSONWilliam J. Berger
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONRothstein Rosenfeldt Adler
ORGANIZATION
United States
LOCATIONStephen Alexander
PERSONthe States Attorney’s office
ORGANIZATION