Epstein Secrets

e reasons, the Court should deny the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to discover and use the plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER RULE 501 Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doe 2 are also not entitled to discovery or use of the p

entity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, WILD provided the following information: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. WILD was approached at a party by a female she believoi was named CHARLISE. She described

onths, one week and 3 days. EFTA00178032 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Shawna Lane Rivera .On 05/28/2008 ,Page Epstein offered to pay an extra $100.00 to Rivera if she brought additional girls to him. Epstein asked Rivera to provide a massage to Sarah LNU but the ma

ormation: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with pe

e plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCO

been viewed as a `limitation on the trial court's broad discre- tion as to evidentiary questions at trial.' Ante, at 169. The problem discussed in Hickman I. Taylor arose precisely because, in addition to accelerating the time when a Page 19 party could obtain evidentiary matter from his adversary,PNI the new

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00205362 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attornevettlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay p ing appeal, the Court is to consider four factors: "(1

emos Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally 8 EFTA00205367 The "c

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to days of settlement/plea

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00205342 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attornevettlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay p ing appeal, the Court is to consider four factors: "(1

emos Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally 8 EFTA00205347 The "c

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to days of settlement/plea

, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when

nsolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

nsidered the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of ' Rule 26(b)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 EFTA00222437 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 11 of 14 a crime, the particul

ed: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors d

o every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that

that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). The privilege is codified at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3): Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents an