Epstein Secrets

tion between the intervenor and the adverse party." Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 997 F.2d 803, 805 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)). One illustration of the way in which Epstein is seeking to avoid ordinary litigation obligations comes from

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

tion between the intervenor and the adverse party." Alvarado v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 997 F.2d 803, 805 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir. 1981)). One illustration of the way in which Epstein is seeking to avoid ordinary litigation obligations comes from

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

oper deposition. AUSA Villafaila secured pro bono counsel by contacting Meg Garvin, Esq. of the the National Crime Victims' Law Center in Portland, Oregon, which is based in the Lewis & Clark College of Law. During the call, Ms. Garvin was not advised that a non-prosecution agreement had been reached.

y of the correspondence between the United States are Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys intervened, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations blocking release of the correspondence. They also argued that the