Epstein Secrets

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.,1 at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fif

ny difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a

465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.] at 122. 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth

rmation only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00222536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 Page

30 causesabeftemenmisn R9seurniitilit51712 EngigMergrl-PPRP098(PkWago9 PatoRN 4 #24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. 1487 U.S.,1 at 104. 108 S.Ct. 2284; f id..I at 122. 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fift

PaKO PS 4 24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, .gr Hoffman, at 486. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to apprehend danger fro

465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.] at 122. 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fifth

rmation only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00067394 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 Page