Epstein Secrets

THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL William Riley and Riley Kiraly ("Riley"). by and through undersigned counsel, file this Reply to the Response of the United States to the Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Qu

Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross Motion to Compel to respond to the Government's assertions that Riley failed to appear before the grand jury.' The Government is mistaken. Riley's appearance before the grand jury was originally scheduled for July 10.

[defendant] from his files; [c]learly such an act of production is testimonial, and may not be compelled"); United States v. Bell, 217 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (where government lacks knowledge of specific documents, party's production of the subpoenaed documents would testify to their existence and his p

t is to these portions of the response to which this reply is directed. I. The first area which requires reply is the government's assertions that Riley simply failed, without notice and without excuse, to appear at the time scheduled for his grand jury appearance. See Response at 1, 5, 6 n.6. This

nued from July 10, 2007, until July 17, 2007, by agreement of the parties. On July 16, 2007, counsel for Epstein were informed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motion to quash the subpoena was filed by Epstein before the end of the day on July 17

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Bell; 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can.be asserted, but only when "it

es filed by Witness William Riley and Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein, a and notes the following: I. Both the witness and the intervenor assert that Mr. Riley was excused from appearing before the grand jury and that Mr. Riley did not flout the subpoena by failing to appear. AUSA agreed with Attorney Mr.

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Bell ,a 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can be asserted, but only when "i