Epstein Secrets

l G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell Paul You can access my publications on h

the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the juris

ald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah EFTA00209323 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 (801) 585-5202 (phone) (801) 581-6897 (fax) [email protected] You can arresc my publications on http://ssm.com/author=30160 C

the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the juris

l G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 Voice: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp7PersonID=57&name.Cassell Paul You can access my publications on h

ircuit decision that an attorney-client rivilege order is not immediately appealable). As you probably know, Epstein plans to rely in United States' Perlman as the basis for an interlocutory appeal. Our understanding is that the Justice Department has long sought to give a narrow construction to Perlman.

FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E., Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209355 CERTIFICATE OF

tead Must be Challenged (If Necessary) at the Conclusion of a Case. 11 B. The District Court's Discovery Order is Not Immediately Appealable Under Perlman. 14 II. EPSTEIN HAS NOT PROVEN ANY INJURY WHICH WOULD WARRANT THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION 18 CONCLUSION 20 EFTA00209358

Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH,' 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C., 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 8

the time and circumstances when he will share his secrets with others and decide the extent of that sharing."), "with shame and embarrassment," see Perlman v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970, 124 S.Ct. 1874, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), aff'd, 380 F