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

leged material to a third party waives the privilege as such disclosure is inconsistent with the confidential relationship."); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington 4 EFTA00805370 Bros., 508 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("In most cases, a voluntary disclosure to a third party of the privileged material

EREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 11th day of February , 2009: Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Bamhart & Jack Alan Goldberger Phone Phone Fax Fax Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

s on this 11th day of February , 2009: Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola

ral Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997) 4. Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO

EREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 11th day of February , 2009: Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Bamhart & Counsel for Plaintiff Co-C

s on this 11th day of February , 2009: Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarol

ral Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997) 4. Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO