Epstein Secrets

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

Paul (SAPOL)- pwal, Scat ( ihde.I4APOli• Weliams Linda (SAPOLt ean. Swart ISAPOL-14401; r P011 ...eyeyo C tAZ et;at Harvey. Peter (SAPOL-PHO); Merritt. Philip ISAPOL1- Parr AP g Patterson Craig (SAPOL); Molts. Paul (4APOQ. Shanahan. Joanne (SAPOLI;Verne/to. Giovanni (SAPOI ' :ccehorneettairc co

the information sought by the Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychiatrists and

t language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language .... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the U.S.C .. is entitled "Crimes and Crim

t-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 a k. vs. Epstein

he Agreement Acted in Good Faith [I] A party who materially breaches a cooperation or plea agreement may not claim its benefits. United States v. Merritt, 988 F.2d 1298, 1313 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 508 U.S. 961, 113 S.Ct. 2933, 124 1,.Ed.2d 683 (1993); United Slates v. Tilley. 964 F.2d 66, 70 (1st