Epstein Secrets

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

Accordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary

Post, moyes pursuant to Fla, R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) for Summary Judgment and states: I. INTRODUCTION The material facts in this case are not in dispute. Jeffrey Epstein was an extraordinarily wealthy, influential, and serial pedophile. It is indisputable that the State failed or refused to use the tools available to

therwise available in the public record-to inform the public as to whether the then State Attorney for Palm Beach County presented truncated evidence ofEpstein’s criminal wrongdoing to the 2006 grand jury in a manner that precluded Epstein’s indictment for the serious crimes he committed, including sex traff

effrey Epstein, till when he had been informed of Mr. Epstein’s reputation and his wealth, and I just thought t

e material facts in this case are not in dispute. Jeffrey Epstein was an extraordinarily wealthy, influenti

cation of grand jury interests is hot ‘some talisman that dissolves all constitutional protections."'Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 630—31 (quoting U.S, v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973)); see also Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S, 829, 838 (1978) (balancing state’s interest in preserving confi

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

ccordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio , 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary

S DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GRAND JURY MATTER FILED UNDER SEAL IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS ) DUCES TECUM IS D TO ) MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Now comes Jeffrey Epstein and respectfully moves this Honorable

Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not ling to, retainer agreements; employment agreements; billing statements (whether submitted directly to Mr. Epstein or to a third party for reimbursement); records of the dates when services were performed and the hours worked; ••••••r telephone logs or records

Y SUBPOENAS ) DUCES TECUM IS D TO ) MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

illing statements (whether submitted directly to Mr. Epstein or to a third party for reimbursement); records

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

eement of the parties. that appearance was rescheduled for July 17, 2007. The day before that scheduled appearance, i.e.. July 16. 2007. counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, who seeks to intervene in this matter, was informed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motio

nformed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motion to quash the subpoena at issue was filed by Epstein before the end of the day on July 17. 2007. As the Government's Response states. Epstein's motion to quash was filed on July 17, 2007 before the clo

he Response of the United States to the Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Sub

d jury subpoenas to investigator and his firm, Mr. Epstein is represented by undersigned counsel Roy Black.

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

ed 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 prosecute him or his "potential co-conspirators" and abandoned any potential federa

s Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") decided that it was not satisfied with this outcome and is now seeking a "do-over." But Epstein died as a result of the government's own negligence before he could be brought to trial. The government has now targeted Ms. Maxwell as the next be

RESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

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

ble Richard M. Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: The Government respectfully writes in response to legal arguments raised by defense counsel at the August 27,

appropriate to conclude that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant as in the Wright case, it should also apply a fortiori in the Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when Mr. Epstein died, when there had been no conviction."); see also United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d

case, which was still in the pretrial phase when Mr. Epstein died, when there had been no conviction."); see

New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: Th

from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside." United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 45-46 (1992); see also United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. I, 17-18 (1973) (holding that the grand jury must remain "free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervisi

SUBPOENA T AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN &

442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) passim United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) 6 United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) 6 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) 2, 15 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) 9, 10 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 16 United

h Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms `to be regarded as reasonable.' United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1973) (quoting Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76 (1906), abrogated in part on other grounds by Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n of New