Epstein Secrets

evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Epstein at Epstein's New Mexico Ranch

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit "N" at 117. 75. Epstein also takes issue with Edwards identifying Bill Richardson as a possible witness. Richardson was properly identified as a possible witness because Epstein's personal pilot testified to Richardson joining Ep

sponsibilities, PAUL G. CASSELL clerked first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-1985) and then from 1985 to 1986 clerked for the United States Supreme Court before serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney EFTA00188845 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM L,,,,ument 291-10 Entered on FLSD 01/21/2015 Page 3 of 7 Edwa

sis to deny the pending pro hac vice motion. See Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 441 (1985)

3d ed. North Carolina Academic Press 2010). He has also litigated crime victims' rights matters before federal courts around the country, including the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Parable v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of "Amy," a child pornography victim seeki

ly protected activity. YThe Honorable Barbara P. Richardson presided. 2 SDNY_GNI_02763186 SUBJECT TO PROTE

Hawaii upheld litigation-ending sanctions after the defendants refused to comply with discovery orders. 68 Haw. at 621, 726 P.2d at 263. In Hovey, the United States Supreme Court found denial of due process of law, stating "(a] sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity

nd Counter-Claim Plaintiff Alan Dershowitz. And with me is my colleague Nicole Richardson and Thomas Scott from the firm of Cole Scott & Kissane. Ms. Richardson and I are from the firm of Wiley Rein. MR. SWEDER: Kenneth Sweder from the firm of ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021825 Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Go

IMPSON, ESQ. [email protected] BY: NICOLE A. RICHARDSON, ESQ. [email protected] INDEX Examinatio

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus

interests of the victim. 774 Having seen the Advisory Committee proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural stan

or sentencing") (discussed at infra notes 524-539 and accompanying text). 475, United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (Sth Cir. 1975). 476 In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 787 (3d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629-30 (Sth Cir. 1981). 417 Accord United States v. Heaton, 458 F.