Epstein Secrets

ereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out of the Whitewater investigation, in which Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sought broad categories of information from Webster Hubbell, a target of the investigation. The subpoena included such requests as "any and all docu

estigation, in which Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sought broad categories of information from Webst

he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.1 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions ... is to protect innocent men . .. who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous

is not inconsistent with our belief that the required scope of waiver was to a predicate offense in the singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumeration secti

est that the plaintiff was injured, see United Stated, Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agrees that Mr. Epstein can contest the injury element under the NPA ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at tr

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

is not inconsistent with our belief that the required scope of waiver was to a predicate offense in the singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumeration secti

e singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convic

, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in

ourts, until its duty is fully performed. Prout Starr, 188 U.S. 537, 544 (23 Sup.Ct. 398, 47 L. . 584)

7. Corte 4w4$9(2) The state courts are the final arbiters of the meaning and appropriate application of state statutes, subject only to review by the United States Supreme Court if such construction or application is appropriately challenged on constitutional grounds. & Coons itio508(7) Interference with the process of th

USE_OVERSIGHT_012135 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Kenneth W. Starr : To Call Writer Directly: FP Facsimile: www.kirkland.com Dir. Fax: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Offic

Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Kenneth W. Starr : To Call Writer Directly: FP Facsimile: www.kir

1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein’s intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be proven

n he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.' Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions... is to protect innocent men... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circu

s" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out of the Whitewater investigation, in which Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr sought broad categories of information from Webster Hubbell, a target of the investigation. The subpoena included such requests as "any and all docum