Epstein Secrets

ach. 401 Telephone: Facsimile: E-mail: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August ? a 2007, the foregoing document was served via Federal Express on Attorney Roy Black and Attorney William Richey. This document was not filed using CIvI/ECF because it is being filed under seal. Assistant U.S.

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

ttorney Roy Black, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The same documents will be served on William Richey, counsel for William Riley and Riley Kiraly, via Federal Express. This document was not filed using CM/ECF because it is being filed under seal. Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST In re Federal Grand Jury Sub

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

ttorney Roy Black, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The same documents will be served on William Richey, counsel for William Riley and Riley Kiraly, via Federal Express. This document was not filed using CM/ECF because it is being filed under seal. Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST In re Federal Grand Jury Sub

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden