Epstein Secrets

against Epstein, they asserted their rights "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred" — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But ev

th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury room."); see also Miller v. Mehltretter, 478 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D. N.Y. 2007). The fact that Epstein's actions are not protected grand jury matters is further proven by the fact that the

s telephone call, Epstein warned against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigating Epstein's sex offenses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 49, 58. We accordingly presume that this is at least an example

e Epstein and Goff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., Miller v. Mehltretter, 478 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D. N.Y. 2007) (Grand jury secrecy rule did not prohibit FBI special agent from testifying, in contempt proceedings against

warned his personal assistant, , against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigating Epstein's sex offenses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 49, 58. EFTA00212808 We accordingly presume that this is at le

e Epstein and IIII that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., Miller v. Mehltretter, 478 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D. N.Y. 2007) (Grand jury secrecy rule did not prohibit FBI special agent from testifying, in contempt proceedings against