Epstein Secrets

ree computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Declaration, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act of production doctrine would not have protected Epstein from producing the computers if they had rem

n an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act o

ury Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

y is identical. 8. C.M.A. I. Epstein, 08-CV-80811-KAM: This suit was filed in state court and removed to federal court. Plaintiff sued Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Epstein's assistant). Kellen is represented by Bruce Reinhart. CMA's initial Complaint alleged sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotiona

n, 08-CV-80811-KAM: This suit was filed in state court and removed to federal court. Plaintiff sued Epstein and Sarah Kellen (Epstein's assistant). Kellen is represented by Bruce Reinhart. CMA's initial Complaint alleged sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CMA later filed a

09). Courts have long consulted official CRS summariesto assess legislative intent, see, e.g., &nig Pension Ben. Guar. Com. 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984); fIRECI'V Inc. I. Cignarella No. I. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 W 1252261 at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005); Clokesav St. Francis Hoso. & Healthcare No.

olved the exact same crimes and same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented Sarah Kellen (Epstcin's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry

ployed there. Specifically, he represented Sarah Kellen (Epstcin's number one co-conspirator who was actu

of the final decision of the Attorney General" of any complaints of violations of the CVRA. Block v. Securities and Exchange Comm In, 50 F.3d I078 (D.C. Cir. 1995), is instructive. In Block, petitioners filed a petition asking the Court to find that the SEC had failed to fulfill its obligation to hold a

ZORRO RANCH RD PAUL VISOSKI. STANLEY, NM 87056-9783 LAWRENCE JR VISOK. LAWRENCE P 1635 SW SILVER PINE WAY APT Fl PALM CITY, FL 34990-4732 4: KELLEN, SARAH L 27 HIGH TECH BLVD 241-53-XXXX 5/1979 BONK, SARAH L THOMASVILLE, NC 27360- VICKERS, SARAH 5560 KENSINGTON, SARAH BINK. SARAH 92 GREE

e level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401, 244 U.S. App. D.C. 11 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney- client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis

United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 'Sarah is one of Epstein's personal assistants. -5- EFTA00179104 ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The

Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileg