tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus

1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein’s intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be proven

al counsel in many high profile cases before I had the chance to work with him, including representing the Vice President of the United States before the United States Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. And HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016201 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cv-03377-LAP Document 36-4 Filed 07/03/19 Page 6 of 6 while I did not kn

interests of the victim. 774 Having seen the Advisory Committee proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural stan

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Go

n he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.' Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions... is to protect innocent men... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circu

rbade the death penalty. Then, on the last day of the United States Supreme Court’s 1971 term, the decision was rendered in a case ca

"Sexual Assault and Battery" and in Count Ill pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§2422, and Defendant has not "misconstrued" the pleading standard formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). In discussing Twombly, the Eleventh Circuit in Watts v. Fla. International Univ., 495 F.3

ld support a criminal conviction, but even if "the responses would merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate."). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the circumstance where "the act of producing documents in response

in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege includes the circumstances as here "the act of producing documents in response to a

y constitutional free speech principles, as a testifying grand jury witness is free to disclose her grand jury testimony . In I Butterworth v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court, weighing the competing interests of grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment, held unconstitutional Section 905;.27’s prohibition on a witness rev

n and freeze them so that they may be preserved to satisfy a potential judgment." Id. at 1527. The court went on to cite an oft- quoted passage from the United States Supreme Court in De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 221 (1945): To sustain the challenged order would create a precedent of sweeping e

designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amend

e others third-party privacy rights. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.C

significantly narrower that other requests that the United States Supreme Court and other courts have upheld. See, e.g., Fisher

tered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 10 of 24 4 The United States Supreme Court has expressly encompassed the innocent citizen as

ein to walk a thin line with regard to "surrender[ing] the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the 10 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 391 Entered on FLSD D

essional background above herein. 5 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals an

"civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244,

78), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein's intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be prove