cgra—V4i8covallifiloWM ft eentintt7442 armtWouldon:kigtiXPOetto1514tligAV FPafiteia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/ vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. 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'S, CONSOLIDATED RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 4801 AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462), (DE 480) and (DE 513) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e). In support, Epstein states: I. Introduction The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[ol]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see abg Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence EFTA02821438