Epstein Secrets

did not have to respond to questioning regarding the initial conversation that took place between Diaz and him. On petition for writ of certiorari, the Third District concluded that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of the law by directing that Rabin need not respond to questions about w

you represented Jane Doe. .. whether she was considered a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" and then re-phrased: ". . .[D]id you learn whether [Jane Doe 1] was listed as a, or deemed to be a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" Id. at 100-104. Although contrary to law, Mr. Scarola's stated position

ROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. 100/9-14 Q. At the time do you know whether, at the time that you represented Jane Doe 1, do you know whether her name, whether she was considered a victim by the United States Attorney's Office? 100/15-23 A. SCAROLA: If that informati

the amendment at all, based on the facts, even if they were undisputed ... I'm only allowing it in a fraud count and I'm only allowing it because the Third District says that I must. Id. (Emphasis in original). 22. In reversing the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal noted that "the trial court's

nd that she had to see a therapist in Miami at her attorney's request and fake cry, pretend like she was damaged and pretend she had been molested; Jane Doe No. 7 was laughing about it. Id. at 264; h. Jane Doe No. 7 never complained that Epstein acted inappropriately or that she suffered any emotional

the Southern District of New York restraining, pending final hearing, the defendant McElligott, Acting and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue of the Third District of New York, from refusing to issue licenses to the complainants as brewers of beer, or to issue revenue stamps in respect to their beer, provided

s. To inform Jane Doe of dates that he had arranged, Evans called Jane Doe on a cellular telephone that she had acquired from him. Evans also gave Jane Doe's cellular telephone number to customers and told Jane Doe to arrange dates when customers called. During the dates, Ev- ans called Jane Doe on the

tain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershow

tain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershowi