Epstein Secrets

nts and assure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege." Id. Rather than cite this recent, controlling decision, Epstein's relies on Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), as grounds for an interlocutory appeal. Of course, appellate court jurisdiction is typically confined to "final" judgments of th

l only serve to delay the victims effort to vindicate their rights under the CVRA, a clear indication that the public interest is not being served. See United States. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012) ("Frustration of federal statutes and prerogatives are not in the public interest ...."). In a trans

observes that the intervenors' privilege objections to public release of the correspondence in question were previously rejected by Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson in a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2'. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV- MARRA." (DE 188 at 3). This Court's

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (.5th Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681 (1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

observes that the intervenors' privilege objections to public release of the correspondence in question were previously rejected by Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson in a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5,

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5ih Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681(1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

observes that the intervenors' privilege objections to public release of the correspondence in question were previously rejected by Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson in a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5,