Epstein Secrets

eir work product waived any claim of privilege. Id. at 1008 (emphasis added). Indeed, Edwards' clients made this argument in their Answer Brief to the Eleventh Circuit! See Excerpt of Ans. Br. in Jane Doe I v. United States, Exhibit at pp. 35-36. Edwards' contrary legal argument now is nothing more than presently

greement. Id. at 1001. The federal district court had overruled Epstein's counsel's privilege objections. Id. at 1002. On appeal, in relevant part, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Edwards' waiver argument and held that Epstein's counsel had waived the work-product privilege as it relates to Edwards' former clients

1 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless of Robson's citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

JPL/slm Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Filth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. $.0 Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala , 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). K&E 19439748.2 EFTA00180297 Rov BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scorer A

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

1141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless ofillin citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

mother"), In re (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) . If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless of citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has

Gam, rims33133 9 a/ 31$ EFTA00231018 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

DR 001141 (Palm Beach Co. Family Ct.) (1/31/08). If this turns out to be the case, there is complete diversity, regardless of citizenship. Although the Eleventh Circuit has recently indicated that a district court may not conduct jurisdictional discovery under such circumstances, another division of this Court has

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

344 In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida, which is within the Eleventh Circuit. 345 United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Victims who wished to be heard were permitted t

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had