Epstein Secrets

OHNSON JANE DOE N0. 2. Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________

ld not go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor attempted to discuss wit

s well as counsel for all of the other victims of Jeffrey Epstein, are entitled to question and challenge Mr

or information related to any legal matters that Mr. Epstein is involved in does not give rise to requisite “e

ition should not go forward as scheduled because Defendant Epstein has never discussed nor attempted to discuss wit

201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Circ. 1979)(It is very u

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. I United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records ... in the hands of an attorney—or p

e reasons, the Court should deny the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to discover and use the plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER RULE 501 Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doe 2 are also not entitled to discovery or use of the p

entity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, WILD provided the following information: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. WILD was approached at a party by a female she believoi was named CHARLISE. She described

onths, one week and 3 days. EFTA00178032 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Shawna Lane Rivera .On 05/28/2008 ,Page Epstein offered to pay an extra $100.00 to Rivera if she brought additional girls to him. Epstein asked Rivera to provide a massage to Sarah LNU but the ma

ormation: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with pe

e plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCO

enabling the client to conform his conduct to the dictates of the law and to present le- gitimate claims and dt enses f if litigation ensues. See Upjohn Co. I United States, O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?vi-2.0&mt=EleventhCircuit

nt to the victims in this case is clear. In 2007, the FBI determined that both Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginning when they were approximately fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years of age respectively. These sexu

of Epstein's sex offenses in Federal Court — Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and a victim I will refer to as "S.R." and "M.J.", and other victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse as well. If further information is disclosed about this case, that will not discourage them from providing information, but rather will encou

he word "Epstein," " "Morrison," "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond," Roxburgh,' r afana, " "Florida SS Foundation," "Starr," "Black," "Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian,"' "Sanchez," "358 El Brillo Way" appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, or the Jeffrey

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, I wrote on behalf of my clients:

riminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take th

/2013 Page 5 of 12 connection with the specific representation." Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 383 (1981), "which explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within the

tion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 6(e) Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration o i 6(e) Box #3 P-

hibit 6. 17. In the declaration, Ms. makes a number of assertions, including that "there could not have been any doubt in anyone's mind .. . that Epstein sexually molested me as a minor"; "I believed that if I told the truth about what happened at Epstein's house, the police "; "I had been greatly in

/2013 Page 19 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-011923 Thru P-011966 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE Counsel" containing: Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege ■ 7/13/2007 letter from to with handwritten attorney (

tified as a potential victim of the lead target, Jeffrey Epstein. 2. After service of the subpoena, Ms.=

have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 14 EFTA00086458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

tein 12889705 NCA customised Closed - liit 16/06/2017 BIS RESULTS: Negative Media: Mali On I ine MailOnline May 24, 2017 Wednesday 10:53 PM GMT Jeffrey Epstein's 'sex slave' settles her defamation lawsuit against British socia xwell who 'passed her around for sex' and trained her to be 'everything a man wa

recruited her as a sex slave when she was 15 for convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and passed around to his friends Maxwell, who was Epstein's girlfriend at the time, is also accused of forcing her to have sex with Maxwell and other underage girls The 55-year-old responded to the allegat

ion of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date:6/16/2017 Report processed by: DEUTSCHE BANK AGII Full Name Address County Phone EPSTEIN. JEFFERY E 9 E 71ST ST NEW YORK (212) 750-9895 NEW YORK. NY 10021-4102 (212) 249.1122 NEW YORK COUNTY (212) 772-9416 ADDITIONAL PERSONAL INFORMATION SSN

2546965 (Age 64) Subject Summary Name Variations 1: EDWARDS. JEFFERY 2: EPSTEIN, J 3: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY 4: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY E 5: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY 6: EPSTEIN. JEFFREY E 7: EPSTEIN. JERRERY 8: EPSTIEN, JEFFERY 9: EPTSTEIN. JEFFERY SSNs Summary No. SSN 1: 090-44-XXXX DOBs Reported DO

N. MARK L SSN:117-444OOCX DOB:1955 (Age: 62) EPSTEIN, PAULA A Deceased • AKA EPSTEIN, PAULINE SSN:050-09-XXXX DOB:10/1918 (Age: 98) TUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLY • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLYN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEINTUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN. E • AKA TUCKER. EPSTEIN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEIN-TU

_00059577 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CCIN(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022401 EFTA 00170127 EFTA01296795 Page 71 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 402, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under c

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 08-80119-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469

Third Party Witness Zinoview’s Motion for Protective Order is denied. By this Motion Third Party Witness Zinoview, who has been employed by Defendant Epstein as a driver and bodyguard since 2005, seeks an order preventing the taking of his deposition on the basis that his employment with Epstein post-dates

cases and that “at not time has he discussed with Mr. Epstein any issues involving Mr. Epstein’s criminal case

). An order completely prohibiting a deposition from going forward, however, is rare, and only resorted to in extraordinary circumstances. Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5 Cir. 1979)(noting that it is very unusual for trial court to th prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether, and absent ext

ed: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors d

o every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 14 EFTA01657765 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));