Epstein Secrets

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, - • Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plai

ntiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, - • Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad(alpathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, ., t Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Pla

iff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, ., t Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fift

ecent March 9, 2017, hearing before the Court further illustrates why the Motion to Quash should be allowed. First, the hearing clearly reflects Mr. Cassell's full understanding of the principled basis for Mr. Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. Tr. 3/9/17 at 39-40. Thus, his arguments

er CO 80203 Bradley James Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing. Edwards, Fistos, Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law At The University of Utah 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 is/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. We

ge. Response at 3-4. Leaving aside the question whether one can "contaminate" proceedings by quoting from opinions of the Supreme Court, see Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001)("we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men ... who otherwise mi