Epstein Secrets

ngton D.C.; as well as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. While not all attorneys participated in each de

See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3): see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

ack A. Goldberger, Goldberger & Weiss, West Palm Beach, FL; and (6) Joe D. Whitley, Alston & Bird, Washington D.C.; as well as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. While not all attorneys participated in each defense presentation, the record here reveals some activity by each of Epstein's defense attorneys du

t to confer and C a § 3771(c)'s related notice obligation apply to the period before a charging instrument is filed. See United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., No. H-07.433, WESTLAW @ 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 30 EFTA00073522 In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (2020) 28

:/hhecareerist.typepad.comithecareerist/ 2016/04/alan•dershowitz•on-the-record.html (last viewed May 9,

es by over-laying some novel "common interest" agreement with her own attorneys. Furthermore, Jack Scarola (attorney for Edwards and Cassell in the Dershowitz case) is, according to Plaintiff, a party to the Joint Defense Agreement and identified in communications regarding the CVRA case (presumably under

ble at times to conduct a media campaign, but that does not transform their coordination of a campaign into legal advice." Haugh v. Schroder Mgmt. N. Am. Inc., 2003 WL 21998674, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2003). Plaintiff simply has not carried her burden of showing that the logged communications meet the r

in the case." 27 EFTA00205650 See I3A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO

tering into a settlement agreement.")); United States Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States, BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

cket 07/05/2013 Page 29 of 101 See I 3A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

cket 07/05/2013 Page 29 of 101 See I 3A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

ocket 07/05/2013 Page 29 of 101 See 13A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed

n the case." 27 EFTA00208849 See I 3A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PRO

ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed