Epstein Secrets

ts, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may be obtained from that individual state's Department of State. Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance Copyright@ 2017 LexisNexis, a division of Reed E

t--closed their inquiry r32] into the matter by noting that the OPR has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct involving only current Department of Justice attorneys. (See P-O13937;' see also P-0013946). The OPR did not investigate the matter further, and it issued no factual determinations on whether a

" (DE 266 at 11). Specifically, it requests "all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059581 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED.

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

e 102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with' regard to the Epstein case. This investigation was undertaken at the request of the victim

de: a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter; b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected as pa

tment accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the pote

tionships" and that "[t]his principle has been applied to fiduciary relationships beyond the traditional trust context"); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 919-21 (8th Cir. 1997) (government attorneys have duty to report wrongdoing). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not

RANSMISSION OK TX/RX. NO 2683 CONNECTION TEL 6592380 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 09/06 14:62 USAGE T 01'00 PGS. SENT 2 RESULT OK U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Facsimile . FACSIMILE CO

counsel upon lift of stay by 11d' Circuit Box #2 P-008364 Thru P-008382 File folder entitled Immunity Request" containing internal memoranda, Justice Department documentation, and subpoena regarding immunity request 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative privilege Box #2 P-008383 Thru P

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (lcl at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza Ncw York, Ncw York 10007 January 16,

its Act must be justified by "'compelling necessity . . . shown with particularity." Howell Opinion, 2017 WL 3278929 at *3 (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 797 F.2d 676, 681 (8th Cir. 1986)). 8. This application sets forth facts showing that there is a compelling necessity for a non- disclosure order

e remote electronic access to all (unsealed) plea agreements extending to all members of the public and the bar, contrary to the expressed wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice. See In Re: Remote Electronic Access to Plea Agreements, Administrative Order 2009-2, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (J

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

e remote electronic access to all (unsealed) plea agreements extending to all members of the public and the bar, contrary to the expressed wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice. See In Re: Remote Electronic Access to Plea Agreements, Administrative Order 2009-2, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (J

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

poena to a defense investigator under these circumstances is the same as a subpoena to defense counsel. And USAM Guideline §9-11.255 requires prior Department of Justice approval for the issuance of a subpoena to a lawyer. That requirement evidently was not met. See Black Aft 115. Second, "because of the potential e

ry Subpoena dated April 9, 1996, 87 F.3d 1198, 1200 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gecas, 50 F.3d 1549, 1566 (11th Cir. 1995); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 754 F.2d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1985) ("the act of production alone can constitute self-incriminating testimony); In re Grand Jury 83-8, 611 F. Supp.