Epstein Secrets

former Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and former Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien. SThe wires and peripheral devices were present but the central processing units ("CPUs") were gone. -4- EFTA00179103 home (at Epstein's invitat

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

former Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and former Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien. FSThe wires and peripheral devices were present but the central processing units ("CPUs") were gone. is one of Epstein's personal assistants. E7A

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

former Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and former Southern District of Florida Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien. FSThe wires and peripheral devices were present but the central processing units ("CPUs") were gone. Sarah Kellen is one of Epstein's personal ass

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden