Epstein Secrets

EW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate ( 1) relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute an

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-804

d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Therefore, it is clear in this intentional tort case that punitive damages are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme to sexually molest dozens of underage teenage girls.3 Even assuming that the “compelling need” s

tive damages are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme

.” Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge’s decision in this case compelling 2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in whic

dard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need” standard for production of tax returns. See cases cited above. Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2010 Page 1 of 12 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I 08-80232, 08-08380

F THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2010 (DE 480), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

TED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225,229 (9 th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (I) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/1

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- Related cases: 08-

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NP A i

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ________________________________

es are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme

tive damages are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme

2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fl

in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need”

ent 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 0226;2010 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

n this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows full well, attached to

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

re [of tax returns] arises 'from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

ent 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

ure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283, which were provided to the court in camera, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amend

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

would therefore violate the Constitution; overly broad. As set forth in more detail in DE 282 and 283, which were provided to the court in camera, Epstein cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to his financial history and condition without waiving his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amend

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha