Epstein Secrets

EQI.2OC Police OpanriOns Centre; SAPOI :Southern District ZAPOL:Plestern District; SAPOL:Yorke Mid North LSA; &Son. Scott (SAPOL-L5801; Pauldcrstone Christine (Sal; Bruhn. John ISAPOLY aria am Cain (SAPOI ); pions. Ruscsll (SAPOLI; AI -SAPOI PMES. gmasagazgpail Edwards, Inhn (SAPOI); Fisher, Michael (SAP

rtin Hamilton-Smith and Marshall declared a leadership spill against Redmond and Williams.18)194 In a partyroom ballot occurred on 23 October 2012, Redmond retained the leadership by one vote; however, Marshall was elected to the deputy leadershipisincilinIMarshall was denied his preferred treasury port

EFTA00262299 LI ZUIZZ. itaa MNt V Pau., vi imps. •••• • • • week before the 2010 election for not being Willing to publicly refuse challenging Redmond for the leadership and faced accusations, particularly by Hamilton-Smith, of derailing the Liberal campaign, with "Chapman Could Challenge" posters

tfolios, while retaining his roles in industry and trade, defence, small business and science.041 Leader of the Opposition On 31 January 2013 after Redmond resigned as Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the SA Lib it was speculated that Marshall would succeed her*t the ballot on 4 Februa arshal wa

ional means for ascertaining the truth, Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11" Cir. 2007), citing United St

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19,116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47,100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recogn

dence 501 is a mixed question of 7 EFTA00209391 Case: 13-12923 Date Wit H4118/2014 Page: 8 of 23 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmar

ted 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 prevent disco

dence 501 is a mixed question of 7 EFTA00209432 Case: 13-12923 Date Wit H4118/2014 Page: 8 of 23 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmar

ted 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 prevent disco

3 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we re

d 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 prevent disco

0), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence," Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Univ. of Pa.'. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S. Ct. 577, 582 (1990)). "Accordingly, there is a presum

ed 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 prevent disco

glance that Mr. Steadman's loan, p25] by its terms, is not to be performed within one year. See RCW 19.36.010; Turning Point Cmty. Church of God in Christ v. Lee, 152 Wash. App. 1014, at *3-4 [published in full-text format at 2009 Wash. App. LEXIS 2336] (2009).° After all, the loan binds Mr. Steadman

rt the motion. II. BACKGROUND In March 2003, Mr. Steadman obtained a loan for $190,000.00, which was secured by the property at 9015 171st Ave NE, Redmond, WA, 98052, and evidenced by a Note and Deed of Trust. (See Hamm Decl. (Dkt. # 25) Ex. 1 ("Note"), Ex. 2 ("Deed of Trust").) This loan required Mr.

lopment of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting T

in evidence as proof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996), and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant public and private interests. Numerous courts have recognized a