Epstein Secrets

familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Edwards' clients had sought to discover correspondence b

er way, it does not apply where there is no common interest to be promoted by a joint consultation and the parties meet on a purely adversary basis. Volpe v. Conroy Simberg, 720 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). A mere hope or expectation that the person 12 EFTA00805378 to whom privileged materials a

e, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial Branch is limited to assessing counsel's public deeds." In re United States 298 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). In short, petitioners are not entitled to "test the bona fides" of the discretionary decision made by prosecutor

plaintiff had the right to examine the investigation materials to determine if O'Quinn's reliance upon them was reasonable. Stern also relied upon Volpe v. U.S. Airways, Inc. 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D. Fla. 1998), where the plaintiff sued defendant U.S. Airways for sexual harassment. U.S. Airways asserted

e, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial Branch is limited to assessing counsel's public deeds." In re United States 298 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). In short, petitioners are not entitled to "test the bona fides" of the discretionary decision made by prosecutor

plaintiff had the right to examine the investigation materials to determine if O'Quinn's reliance upon them was reasonable. Stern also relied upon Volpe v. U.S. Airways, Inc. 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D. Fla. 1998), where the plaintiff sued defendant U.S. Airways for sexual harassment. U.S. Airways asserted

M Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 4 of 11 examination on matters reasonably related to those brought out in direct examination." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239-40 (1975) (footnote omitted). The same considerations apply when considering any assertion of attorney-client privileg

.1996); Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti, 1997 WL 10924, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 1997)). As an illustration of how the doctrine operates, this Court cited Volpe v. U.S. Ainvays, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D.Fla.1998). As this Court explained, in Volpe, the plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging employment disc

04 Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *I (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) 10 United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) 21 United States v. Volpe, 42 F. Supp. 2d 204 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 24 United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 14, 15 United States v. White, 972 F.2d 16 (2d

tes v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1372 (2d Cir. 1985) ("Ignorance of the law is no defense to a charge of purposeful and intentional action."); United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598, 601 n.2 (3d Cir. 1972) ("As long as the inexcusable intent is present, it is not necessary that the defendant know that