Epstein Secrets

80); United States v. Landof, , 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand flay Proceedings , 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn , the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still binding precedent. Even applying Boyd , the court found tha

hidoni , 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the subpoenas are addressed to William Riley and to the Custodian of Records of Riley Kiraly. Neither Riley nor his firm has asserted a legitimate fear of incrimination (and of course they have none), only Epstein has done so. As such, the Fifth Amendment

980); United States I Landof, , 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand flay Proceedings , 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn , the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still binding precedent. Even applying Boyd , the court found tha

hidoni , 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the subpoenas are addressed to William Riley and to the Custodian of Records of Riley Kiraly. Neither Riley nor his firm has asserted a legitimate fear of incrimination (and of course they have none), only Epstein has done so. As such, the Fifth Amendment

. 1980); United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn, the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still binding precedent. Even applying Boyd, the court found that

Ghidoni, 732 F.2d 814 (11th Cir. 1984). In this case, the subpoenas are addressed to William Riley and to the Custodian of Records of Riley Kiraly. Neither Riley nor his firm has asserted a legitimate fear of incrimination (and of course they have none), only Epstein has done so. As such, the Fifth Amendment