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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

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

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to

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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

if you want to, we can schedule this so you can have lunch. On the other hand, if you don't want lunch, that's okay. I can endure. By the way, the Epstein motion will go over to tomorrow because we were told, if I understand it correctly, that they didn't know it was on for today. How that ignorance

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deals with the admissibility of things like the nonprosecution agreement, Jeffrey Epstein's plea, his sex offender registration, because if it relates to Ms. Maxwell's statement or the statement that Ms. Maxwell refers to, then it's relev

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. McCAWLEY: Well, we're entitled to ask her on the stand; we're entitled to ask Jeffrey what he told her. THE COURT: That's a different issue. That's a different issue. I mean, that's a wholly different thing. You're talking about you

ure off her and to satisfy the sexual desires of Mr. Epstein. That's why there was this vast -- THE COURT: An

s. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00592422 H3ulgiva 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a victim ins

51 H3ulgiva 1 in 2015, which is, all of these allegations that deal with 2 Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, all of those allegations 3 are untrue, she has the ability to know all of the public 4 information that would tell her thi

talked to people who think that comes under the transcript, who is then says: Well, you know, I know that were alleged as co-conspirators, and I Epstein's privilege. Mr. Edwards, in a party litigant, says: She wasn't a co-conspirator. That's what he says in this transcript, which you will see. He m

EFTA00794477 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794478 57 H3ulgiva 1 MS. McCAWLEY: Well, we're entitled to ask her on the 2 stand; we're entitled to ask Jeffrey what he told her. 3 THE COURT: That's a different issue. That's a 4 different issue. I mean, that's a wholly different thing. 5 You're talking

laintiff's allegations that prior to ever meeting Mr. Epstein 3 or Ms. Maxwell, she was the victim of sex tra

of Identified Victims, not identified witness. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00794473 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794474 55 H3ulgiva 1 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be 2 distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show 3 that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a vict

2011. A FD-302 report was entered on July 5, 2013. See Exhibit A. During the interview process, the FBI agents informed t they had retrieved from Jeffrey E stein's homes, video to es, CDs and DVDs, pictures an documents, that include video tapes of d documents (including but not limited to e-mails and other r

d from the following residences owned by Jeffrey Epstein. 1) 358 El Brillo Way Palm Beach, Florida 3348

e FBI agents informed t they had retrieved from Jeffrey E stein's homes, video to es, CDs and DVDs, picture

4C rAA 0010V41JOI VaAv tiff, IL, 832 F.2d 554 832 F.2d 554, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Sm. 275 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554) H United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS—Subpoena to State Attorney's Office. Thomas H. Greene, Dawson A. McQuaig, Jake Godbold, Don McClure, Intervenors- A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS In accorda

0591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE, CONS

:09-CV-80591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARAN

strict of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, District of Columbia Circuit, and Federal Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. EFTA00728148

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

00 Miami , FL 33131 Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

te 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00799968 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

K KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami , FL 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421; Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

ax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00601686 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for DOYLE,LEA Dateffime of Request: Thursday, March 3, 2011 12:32 Eastern Client Identifier: EPSTEIN Database: FEDFIND Citation Text: 627 F.3d 622 Lines: 352 Documents: Images: 0 The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyrigh

omson Reuters, West and their affiliates. EFTA00598999 wgithw Page I 627 F.3d 622 (Cite as: 627 F.3d 622) C United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. McGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-1597. Argued Nov. 9, 2010. Decided Dec. 2, 201