Epstein Secrets

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

o power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Overby. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158, 162 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1955) (exercising interlocutory jurisdiction and citing Perlman in a civil action to recover damage

a privilege); Krane, 625 F.3d at 572 (ruling that "Perlman and Mohawk are not in tension" when the claimant of a privilege is not a party). But see United States'. Copar Pumice Co., Inc., 714 F.3d 1197, 1207-09 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that jurisdiction under the Perlman doctrine is limited to only the grand

g jurisdiction because the appellant "claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to produce"); Int'l Horizons, Inc. I Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Int'l Horizons, Inc.), 689 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that an order compelling production of

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

ims intend to use the correspondence against the United States, not against Epstein. Rule 410 "create[s], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 115 S. Ct. 797, 803 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), but not a privilege of non-disclosure

g jurisdiction because the appellant "claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to produce"); Int'l Horizons, Inc. I Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Int'l Horizons, Inc.), 689 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that an order compelling production of

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

ims intend to use the correspondence against the United States, not against Epstein. Rule 410 "create[s], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205, 115 S. Ct. 797, 803 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), but not a privilege of non-disclosure

g jurisdiction because the appellant "claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to produce"); Int'l Horizons, Inc. I Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Int'l Horizons, Inc.), 689 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that an order compelling production of

rring admission of plea negotiations; the alleged victims intended to admit the evidence of the plea negotiations to prove violations of the CVRA by the United States, not to be used against the alleged perpetrator. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 410, 28 U.S.C.A. [12] Federal Civil Procedure 170A f=1604(2) 170A Federal Civ

s. United States I. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir.2006); Pickett I. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir.2000). And the issue of whether to r

jurisdiction because the appellant "claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to pro- duce"); Int'l Horizons, Inc. I. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Int'l Hori- zons, Inc.), 689 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1982) (holding that an order compel- ling production

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

g jurisdiction because the appellant "claims a privilege of non-disclosure relating to materials that another party has been directed to produce"); Int'l Horizons, Inc. v. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Int'l Horizons, Inc.), 689 F.2d 996, 1001-02 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that an order compelling production o