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

igation. The right to effective assistance of counsel does not attach until adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972). For this reason, the Sixth Amendment does not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a demand for information related to the

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

tigation. The right to effective assistance of counsel does not attach until adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant. Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 (1972). For this reason, the Sixth Amendment does not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a demand for information related to t

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, I I end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not participate in any way

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

criminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of a complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States v. Pace, 833 FM 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warran

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

criminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of a complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warr

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

criminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of a complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest warr

reference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

etitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ e

riminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of a complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States v. Pace , 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arrest war