Epstein Secrets

. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favor

ED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

ying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo

410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations." S.E.C. v. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 5

lying Rules 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d ion, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). Zes, zgr. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo

TED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

ying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Rule 408 . . . is the promotion of the public policy favo

410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations." S.E.C. v. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 5