Epstein Secrets

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

purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d ion, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). Zes, zgr. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying

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

nderlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Fed. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Ru

d therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to ni t federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein p

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

e purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlyi

d therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to ni t federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein p

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

e purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlyi