Epstein Secrets

y, and, as shown by Attachment E to the Black Affidavit, Epstein was receiving professional chiropractic services from a licensed chiropractor, Dr. Thomas Rofrano. Epstein's counsel misstates the state charges pending against his client. The state grand jury returned a three-count indictment. Each count charg

(4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

y, and, as shown by Attachment E to the Black Affidavit, Epstein was receiving professional chiropractic services from a licensed chiropractor, Dr. Thomas Rofrano. Epstein's counsel also misstates the state charges pending against his client. The state grand jury returned a three-count indictment. Each count

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff 'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th C

y, and, as shown by Attachment E to the Black Affidavit, Epstein was receiving professional chiropractic services from a licensed chiropractor, Dr. Thomas Rofrano. Epstein's counsel misstates the state charges pending against his client. The state grand jury returned a three-count indictment. Each count charg

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

l records including treatment notes of Mr. Epstein's treatment by a chiropractor (see Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated March 13, 2007, to Dr. Thomas Rofrano annexed as Exhibit "E"), and now, invasion of the defense camp by seeking records of the investigative work performed by Mr. Riley on behalf of you

rty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimo