Epstein Secrets

ng waiver of "confidentiality of the corpus" of communications from a telephone call disclosing part of privilege communications); United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that waiver of attorney-client privilege extended to the entirety of two letters written by Jacobs' attorne

3 Misc.2d 179, 425 N.Y.S.2d 485, (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 1980) 13 People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 549 N.E.2d 1183 (N.Y. 1989) 10 United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 13 iii EFTA00728064 United States v. Sanusi, 813 F. Supp. 149 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) fn. 4 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2255

by Playing It for Three People and Describing It in Detail to Others 11 II. ANY QUALIFIED JOURNALIST'S PRIVILEGE OF THE DAILY NEWS IS OVERCOME BY JANE DOE'S CLEAR AND COMPELLING NEED TO OBTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ABUSE AND LACK OF REMORSE 13 i EFTA00728062 A. The Epstein In

and I am sorry about that. But I guess that doesn’t change the fact that I love you so much.... Love AJ P.S. This is Asha mailing on behalf of Mr. Jacobs. As if that weren’t enough, she also sent Julie an e-card. I click on it: two teddy bears embracing, with the words, “Anytime you need a hug, I’ve g

featuring the world’s most famous harlequin.) I request that Honey gently ask them to stop with the press releases. Here’s what she sent: Dear All, Jacobs often receives mails from Colorado news, too often. They are definitely interesting topics. However, these topics are not suitable for “Esquire.” Fu

e difference between absolute and relative income. Absolute income is measured using one holy and inalterable variable: the raw and almighty dollar. Jane Doe makes $100,000 per year and is thus twice as rich as John Doe, who makes $50,000 per year. Relative income uses two variables: the dollar and time,

whether she consented to or complied with the sexual acts charged. See United States v. Stone, 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); Virgin Islands v. Jacobs, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show character of assault victim); Dept. of Professional Regulation

STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

whether she consented to or complied with the sexual acts charged. See United States v. Stone, 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973); Virgin Islands v. Jacobs, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. V.I. 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show character of assault victim); Dept. of Professional Regulation

STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

a. 4th DCA 2009). "[E]ven if relevant, a trial court may not permit the collateral crime evidence to become an impermissible feature of the trial." Jacobs v. At!. Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714, 718 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2015), reh'g denied (June 9, 2015) (citing Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543, 551 (Fla.

pstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 106. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case. 107. Jeffrey Epstein 5th Amendment Speech. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether o

s inadmissible when the evidence is introduced solely to prove bad character, or that the person acted in conformity with his character. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (error to admit evidence that roommate bounced checks in action for negligent disposition of propert

perfield and Bill Richardson for deposition en 70-75); purported relevancy of pilot and flight logs to show interstate airplane travel in support of Jane Doe's Federal Rico claims and punitive damages (911 77-79); Epstein's interview with a New York newspaper reporter (9191 80-81); Epstein's alleged threat

1 ®usa.doj.gov>, "Bessee, Cecilia O. (OGC) (FBI)" <[email protected]>, "Stanford, Jennifer L. (OGC) (FBI)" [email protected]>, "Jacobs, James T. (OGC) (CON) (FBI)" <James.Jacobs®ic.fbi.gov> Subject: RE: Jane Doe 1 and 2 1 United States Petitioners' Fourth Request for Production Da

>, "Stanford, Jennifer L. (OGC) (FBI)" [email protected]>, "Jacobs, James T. (OGC) (CON) (FBI)" <James.Jacobs®ic.fbi.gov> Subject: RE: Jane Doe 1 and 2 1 United States Petitioners' Fourth Request for Production Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 16:08:00 +0000 Importance: Normal John, We asked for and

the notions of fair trial for the state to force a defendant to resurrect a prior defense against a crime for which the defendant is not on trial." Jacobs v. All. Coast Ref, Inc., 165 So. 3d 714 (Fla. 4`h DCA 2015) (finding that "because the prior case was settled, none of the allegations therein were

ffort to keep this trial from turning into a circus, has already ruled that Edwards is limited at trial to discussing his three clients' (EW, LM and Jane Doe) claims. Specifically, the Court's January 16, 2018, Order provides: [T]he parties may speak generally about the number of claims that Epstein was

of whether she consented to or complied with the sexual acts charged. See United States Stone, 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973)• Virgin Islands'. Jacobs, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. ■ 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show character of assault victim); Dept. of Professional Regulation I.

Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly ob