Epstein Secrets

CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files its response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to intervene and to quash two grand jury subpoenas issued to William Riley (Subpoena No. OLY-63) and to the Custodian of Records for Riley Ki

ly conflates several concepts involving different privileges that, when dissected, do not apply to the subpoenaed items. The first issue is whether Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege applies to Riley's production of the computers removed from Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a pers

s. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman , 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing In re Grand Jury EFTA00222994 Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine) , 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of attorney-clie

and OLY-64 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

of the investigation. When Guy Lewis stated that Mr. Epstein was willing to assist in the federal investigatio

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby asks for permission to file a Supplemental ex parte Declaration in support of its Response to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Intervene and to Quash Subpoenas and Cross- Motion to Compel. In support thereof, the United States states the following: 1. The Declara

response consists of rambling generalizations about various areas of the law which have little or nothing to do with the issues actually raised by Epstein, and those sections of the response require no reply. In other portions, however, the government has ignored critical facts, mischaracterized or mis

target surfaces. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (1 1 th Cir. 1983) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine), 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of attorney-clien

AN & STUMPF, P.A., hereby appears as counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in the above-entitled cause. DATED at Mi

nce of a two-year term of state imprisonment for Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for

rom the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence, t

CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files its response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion to intervene and to quash two grand jury subpoenas issued to William Riley (Subpoena No. OLY-63) and to the Custodian of Records for Riley Ki

ly conflates several concepts involving different privileges that, when dissected, do not apply to the subpoenaed items. The first issue is whether Epsteins Fifth Amendment privilege applies to Riley's production of the computers removed from Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a pers

and OLY-64 UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

of the investigation. When Guy Lewis stated that Mr. Epstein was willing to assist in the federal investigatio

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

E WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE. In asserting that the contents of the computers are covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, Epstein attempts to stretch the privileges beyond its limits. There has been no assertion that the computers themselves were communications or that the comp

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

: 191694 The Suppression of Science: The Case of Jeffrey MacDonald A case in which science has not yet pr

ith and expressed the belief that the Court—even this Court—would simply not send hundreds to their death. And then a major and unanticipated break. The California Supreme Court — perhaps the most influential state court in the nation —ruled that its constitution (which had substantially similar wordings as the federal Consti

ry to prove the certainty of their innocence. The Jeffrey MacDonald case discussed previously, is a prime e

medical school at the University of California at Davis (also a state school). Allan Bakke had been denied admission, he claimed, based on his race. The California Supreme Court agreed with Bakke, ruling that the medical school’s admission policy violated equal protection. The medical school sought and obtained review by the

iper Davis Polk Dorsey & Whitney Eisner Gorin Epstein Becker Green Gerard Fox Law Geyser PC Gibson D

months this summer and saw a second trial between the two end Thursday. Read full article » Calif. High Court Approves Updates To State Bar Rules The California Supreme Court on Friday approved a final version of its new Rules of Professional Conduct, which are set to go into effect in November, including a major update

s Polk Dentons Dickinson Wright Dudley Topper Epstein Becker Green EFTA00032976 --- PAGE BREAK ---

IP market and a desire from law firms to find a competitive edge. Read full article » Conflict Sinks Sheppard Mullin Fee Win, Calif. Justices Say The California Supreme Court chose Thursday not to provide a final answer in a $3.8 million fee dispute between Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and a former client, rulin