Epstein Secrets

nited States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 13, 14 United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 10 United States v. Dionisio, 503 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2007) 12 United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) 6, 7, 10 United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Ci

axwell is a stunning example of prosecutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to pros

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[tjhe Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

00 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA01713171 In approximately January 2007, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida initiated what was termed a "parallel" investigation to determine whether the conduct in which Mr. Epstein had allegedly engaged violate

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[t]he Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

cayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: • Fax • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00178994 In approximately January 2007, a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida initiated what was termed a "parallel" investigation to determine whether the conduct in which Mr. Epstein had allegedly engaged violate