Epstein Secrets

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209386 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209427 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209633 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to p

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209742 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pr

o Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00209811 Page 7 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) I. BACKGROUND In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

hip, unlike the confiden- tial relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S.Ct. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether t

ll Clinton, Donald Trump and other high-powered figures. The appeal court decision described the background of Epstein's case, stating that in 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation "began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls." In September 2007, federal prosecutors struck the n

nship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States vio

tment with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07; IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States

350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik O

ers concerning all matters about which the Offices inquire of him, shall cooperate filly with the Offices, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Postal Inspection Service and any other law enforcement agency so designated by the Offices, shal

the Parent-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 a k. v

e of transcription 05/30/200 Pursuant to a federal investigation regarding the sexual exploitation of minors, Shawna Lane Rivera was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and purpose of the interview, Rivera voluntarily provided the following infor

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

ed violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 2. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate comm

ionship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patent or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rtle 410. See Jaffee. 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S. Cf. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether th