Epstein Secrets

D described her as a very pretty Hispanic female in her early twenties, with long brown hair, and approximately 5'5" to 5'6" tall. WILD stated that SARAH KELLEN, another of EPSTEIN's assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. KELLEN would telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other

wn hair, and approximately 5'5" to 5'6" tall. WILD stated that SARAH KELLEN, another of EPSTEIN's assistants, or EPSTEIN would usually contact her. KELLEN would telephone and ask if she was available or if she had any other Investigation on 08/07/2007 a: West Palm Beach, Florida Rica 31E-MM-108062

WILD provided the following additional or clarifying information not previously documented in earlier FD-302s: JEFFREY EPSTEIN and his assistants, SARAH and ADRIANA(identified as SARAH KELLEN and ADRIANA MUCINSKA) would contact WILD to set up appointments for EPSTEIN's massages. According to WILD,

2160) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Rule 26(b)(3), and in Rule 16 of the Criminal Rules as well, see Rules 16(b) and (c); cf. E. Cleary, McCormick. on Evidence 208 (2d ed. 1972). [17][18][19][20][21) Ths_privilege de- rived from tile work-product doctrine is nqt abatitutictike other qualifier

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for D~fendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for D~fendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

ction request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). The "implicit authentication" rationale appears to be the

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

ion or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6 th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

ld, 593 F.2d 815 (8th Cir.1979). Importantly, there are no minor Plaintiffs in this matter or the related matters. All are of age. 5. Moroever, I McCormick on Evid., §19 (6th ed.) states, in pertinent part, that: "[f]or two centuries, common law judges and lawyers have regarded the opportunity of cross-

U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl

ed Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7 Title 6, C

stein Page 11 Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricci-Leopold, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for Plainti

Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

ion or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)• McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe F

U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl

ed Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 7 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 7

No. 2 v. Epstein Page 15 Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting

communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes,

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted d

! !24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedinas

. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motio

testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see ado Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted d