Epstein Secrets

ce in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confident

iosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?5 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out)

s is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pr

ce in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confident

iosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?3 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out)

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

luding alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. See generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in one's sexual matters and is not lim

ing request 10 that would result in the required disclosure of communications from the Government counsel to Epstein, that notice be provided to the United States Attorney so they may intervene to protect their opinion work product, assert their rights to confidentiality under FRE 408 and 410, and assert where

nts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. ao in re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pro

travel[ s] in interstate commerce or travels into the United States or ... travels in foreign commerce." Accordingly,

uired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privile

luding alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limi

ts is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of pros

est No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosec

quired to produce and/or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000)(the "privil

nst self-incrimination does not extend to documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations wh

elate solely to Defendant's net worth and are "unrelated to Defendant's inducement of minors to sexual activity,"' ring hollow. See Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does ' See Plaintiffs' Mtn. (D.E. #333), p.7. 7 EFTA00728622 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KA