Epstein Secrets

Goldberger Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbuiy, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (fax) Is/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston. Massachusetts 02116 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Martin G. Weinberg, hereby certify tha

t Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (fax) Is/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 B

n.4. 4 EFTA00589513 needed to prosecute [him] for a federal crime." Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 441 (2d Cir. 2008), quoting United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 38 (2000). See, e.g., United States v. Greenfield, 831 F.3d 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2016)("the Fifth Amendment privilege has been found to

her v US we don't want to set forth a position in demanding discovery we will be forced to relinquish in defending it (if and when the time comes) Martin G. Weinberg MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston. MA 02116 FAX) **************************************************************************

From: "Martin Weinberg" < To: "Jeffrey Epstein" <[email protected]>

l is to not take any position that would conflict with your right, if necessary, at a later time, to assert a 5th Am.act of production defense under Hubbell v US, Fisher v US we don't want to set forth a position in demanding discovery we will be forced to relinquish in defending it (if and when the tim

r & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 659-8305 (561) 835-8691 (fax) [email protected] is/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 227-3700 (617) 338-9538 (fax) [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SER

-8691 (fax) [email protected] is/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 B

the chain of evidence needed to prosecute [him] for a federal crime." Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 441 (2d Cir. 2008), quoting United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 38 (2000). See, e.g., United States v. Although plaintiff has argued elsewhere that the existence of such photographs is a foregone c

evant to the parties claims and defenses, reasoning that the quasi-privilege for tax returns had not been expressly recognized within the Circuit); Weiner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 76 F.R.D. 624, 627 (S.D.Fla.1977) (holding that no privilege attaches to tax returns and that their discoverability t

t patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents’ existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed “ordinary business records.”