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

(9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on the next available date. Epstein's counsel argues first that his client should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Assuming that the C

target surfaces. In re Grand Jury Proceedings in Matter of Freeman , 708 F.2d 1571, 1574-75 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Jeffrey Fine ), 641 F.2d 199, 201-03 (5th Cir. 1981)). As explained below, Mt Riley is not an attorney; Riley Kiraly is not a law firm; and the information sough

UNDER SEAL UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY

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

durally and legally. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States' Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States' Muiioz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I

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

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro

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

Its Applicability. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United '8For purposes of this discussion, the requested documents will be jointly referred to as "billing records.

A/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________

allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion hom

hey were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The

d requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several ob

United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976); U.S. v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 1

tes, digital cameras, and memory cards. 2. All computer equipment and electronic storage media that currently belongs to, or has ever belonged to, Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to central processing units ("CPUs"), laptop computers, keyboards, printers, modems, routers, hard drives, flash drives,

. Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not limited 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; telephone logs or records of dates

t currently belongs to, or has ever belonged to, Jeffrey Epstein, including but not limited to central pr

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

and jury. My research shows that the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Muiloz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v

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

ommunication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. v. United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pr

, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when

nsolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

ommunications" between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976); U.S. v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th CIr.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 640 (1991); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 788 F.2d 1511, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). Un

From: To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: melanie has sent you an UpToDate topic Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 05:02:36 +0000 I wonder if she has has an under

From: To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: melanie has

From: To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Re: mel

re headache".) The clinical syndrome of spontaneous low CSF pressure has been recognized for many years. The syndrome was first proposed in 1938 by Schaltenbrand [nal, who termed it aliquorrhea, and described a headache syndrome virtually identical to that following LP. He proposed three possible mechanisms (

NT, ATTORNEY-CLIENT, AND WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES ARE UNENFORCEABLE; THE COURT MUST BE ALLOWED TO JUDGE EACH ASSERTION ON ITS FACTS In his motion, Epstein asserts that all of the items called for by the subpoenas will violate his Fifth Amendment privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the work pr

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro