Epstein Secrets

. Sincerely, William L. Richey Transcnbed as Dictated.• Minted & Approved for Electronic Transmission Absent Signature WLR/ dct EFTA00178978 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave.. Suite 400 ch, FL 3340! Facsimile: VIA FACSIMILE Roy Black, Esq.

at liberty to discuss this matter with you. Moreover, it is not the practice of this Office to discuss internal Department of Justice policies with non-Justice Department personnel. If Mr. believes he has cause to move to quash the subpoena, or if Mr. Epstein does for that matter, counsel for the respective parties

ropriety of those other subpoenas is not at issue here, the subpoenas to Mr. Riley and to his firm are. When it was pointed out to prosecutors that internal Department of Justice rules require, inter-O11a, that issuance of the subpoenas be predicated on the pre-approval of the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Divis

se "what the government seeks is a license to roam through everything_ in the computer without limitation and without standards"); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D. Me. 2003) (warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search and no references to statutes, cri

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

ecause it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

because it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States. Clough; 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

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

use "what the government seeks is a license to roam through everything- n the computer without limitation and without standards"); United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D. Me. 2003) (warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search and no references to statutes, cri

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

ecause it authorized agents to seize everything, even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States v. Clough; 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003)(warrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); U

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

because it authorized agents to seize everything even if unrelated to the offense under investigation and even if wholly personal); United States'. Clough, 246 F.Supp.2d 84, 87-88 (D.Me. 2003Xwarrant to search computers which contained no limitations on the search was unconstitutionally overbroad); Un