Epstein Secrets

e witness for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the ev

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

re not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1

Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

he witness for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain his burden of making a particularized showing to s

equest as true, photographing Epstein's genitalia could potentially provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. 8. In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, the Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to several interrogatories a

he witness for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain hls burden of making a particularized showing to s

Y EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON , Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 2 EFTA00728595 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on F

he witness for which he cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause'. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp 1070, 1071-72 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (allowing questions to be asked regarding personal backgrounds and experiences excluding the eve

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80I I 9-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

Consumer Products Company, a Division of McNeil-PPC, Inc.; and McNeilab, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Testified at deposition, 4/19/91 Vance v. Krause (DeKalb County, Georgia) Testified at trial, 5/17/91 State of New Mexico v. Chester, M.D. (Albuquerque, NM) Testified at trial, 8/5/91 People of

k, New York) [2nd Circuit Opinion: 938 F.2d 1535 (2nd Cir. 1991)] Testified at deposition, 5/13/90 Testified in court (trial or hearing), 5/14/90 Jane Doe v. Stuart Brown. M.D. (San Diego, California) Testified by deposition, 6/6/90 Carin Evans vs. Richard Benton, Ph.D. (Houston, Texas) Testified at