Epstein Secrets

such cases as Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183, 184-85 (9th Cir. 1965); United States v. McParllin, 595 F.2d 132 I, 1336-37 (7th Cir. 1979); Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 787-88 (3d Cir. 1985); Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc., 106 F.R.D. 187, 191-92 (N.D. lll. 1985); In Re

Cir. 1985); Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc., 106 F.R.D. 187, 191-92 (N.D. lll. 1985); In Re Sealed Case, 29 F.3d 715, 719 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1994); United States v. Bay State Ambulance and Hospital Rental Service. Inc.. 874 F.2d 20, 28 (1st Cir. 1989); and Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jep

such cases as Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183. 184-85 (9th Cir. 1965): United States v. McParllin. 595 F.2d 132 1. 1336-37 (7th Cir. 1979); Eisenberg v. Chagnon. 766 F.2d 770. 787-88 (3d Cir. 1985): Schachar it American Academy of Ophthalmology. Inc.. 106 F.R.D. 187. 191-92 (N.D. Ill. 1985): In R

Cir. 1985): Schachar it American Academy of Ophthalmology. Inc.. 106 F.R.D. 187. 191-92 (N.D. Ill. 1985): In Re Sealed Case. 29 F.3d 715. 719 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1994); United States v. Bay Stale Ambulance and Hospital Rental Service. Inc.. 874 F.2d 20. 28 (1st Cir. 1989): and Hanover Ins. Co. r. Rapo & Jep

pp. 2d 1214, 1216 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Sierra Equity Group, Inc. a White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Eisenberg v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 09-80199, 2009 WL 1809994, at *3 (S.D. FIa. June 25, 2009)). But that is precisely what Petitioners seek here. Accordingl

ed, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Congress did not intend to auth

rvice of the subpoena, Ms.= retained the services of James Eisenberg, Esq. to represent her. Jeffrey Epstein paid for that representation. 3. Mr. Eisenberg communicated to me orally and in writing that Ms. would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege if she were forced to appear before the grand jury, an

uct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis