Epstein Secrets

ives the privilege. United States v. Jones, 696 F.2d 1069, 1072 (4th Cir. 1982). The general rule applies here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were shared with Epstein's counsel by Mr. Scherer, counsel for Razorback. Thus, Edwards admits that he volu

es here. On March 8, 2018, Edwards' counsel, Jack Scarola, implied (incorrectly) that the e-mails were sha

tive waiver of work-product protection where materials were disclosed to the government, despite confidentiality agreement); McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials

s, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth, FL 33461 561-582-7600 Fax: 561-588-8819 Counsel for Plaintiff C.M.A. reelrhwahotmail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300

l for Plaintiff C.M.A. reelrhwahotmail.com Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarol

ute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to t

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 9 of 19 I and Jane Doe 2. Ile and his own lawyer in a related state case, Jack Scarola, have been widely quoted by local and British press, making prejudicial and inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence betwee

nd inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence between the defense team and the government is not kept confidential, attorneys Scarola and Edwards could reasonably be expected to continue disseminating out-of-court publicity and making extrajudicial statements and commentary to the

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co.l Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge