Epstein Secrets

ants is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vasco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces !cum, pur

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

ts is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). FN6. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert h

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces team purs

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that It)he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel). Buffalo. NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum. pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Flitch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they asser

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from F1a.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Any., of counsel). Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Any., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum, pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). P146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert

nts is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that Mlle rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Any. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. pu

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.24 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

r by any other object; or the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation." Fla. Stat. § 796.01(1Xd). Also, the Florida Supreme Court jury instructions define prostitution as involving "sexual intercourse." As a result, topless massages—even ones for hire that include self masturb

of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO").' I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will highlight salient points responsive