Epstein Secrets

tes in evaluating that claim, but Epstein has objected to the production of those documents. F.I 1Although unpublished, the case of United States v. Hunter , 1995 WL 12513 (N.D. III. Jan. 6, 1995), contains facts similar to the ones at bar and gives a detailed analysis of the applicability of the attorn

rney U.S. Attorney's Office West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for United States EFTA00211798 William L. Richey, Esq. William L. Richey P.A. Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone l Facsimile: Attorney for Subpoenaed Parties Riley Kiraly and William Riley Service via Federal Express Roy Blac

be both (1) testimonial and (2) incriminating."). Later in his Reply, in order to avoid the clear similarity between this case and United States v. Hunter, Epstein goes out of his way to assert that the computers are not incriminating. Epstein argues: "Unlike a murder weapon or bank robbery proceeds,

Office 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach. FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for United States -6- William L. Riche , Esq. William L. Richey P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for Sub oenaed Parties Service via U. . Mail Black,

poena, 204 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2000), see Response at 21-22, was simply a claim of privilege with respect to the client's identity. United States v. Hunter, 1995 WI, 12513 (N.D.111. January 6, 1995), does not, as the government would have it. "contain[] facts similar to the ones, at bar." Response at 21

Office 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for United States -6- William L. Richey, Esq. William L. Richey P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 34th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for Subpoenaed Parties Riley Kiraly and William Riley