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

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). F16 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

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

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). FI6 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

os on HBO, the Washington Times (8/4, Sherfinski, 492K) reports that Trump "raised the prospect that alleged sex trafficker and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein might have been killed while in federal custody." Trump said, "[Epstein) was either killed or committed suicide in jail." Trump said, regarding Ghis

ed the prospect that alleged sex trafficker and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein might have been killed while in federal custody." Trump said, "[Epstein) was either killed or committed suicide in jail." Trump said, regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying t

t alleged sex trafficker and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein might have been killed while in federal c

rants were served." WISH-TV Indianapolis (8/4, 33K) also reports. FBI Continues Probe Of 2019 Dayton, Ohio Mass Shooting. WHIO-TV Dayton, OH (8/4, Bedell, 109K) reports from Dayton, Ohio, "Six months after the FBI said it was wrapping up its investigation into the mass shooting at the Oregon District,

MEMORANDUM To: Barry Hart and Peter Hiebert From: William L. Blum and Robert Ladislaw cc: Jeffrey Epstein, Erika Kellerhals, Robert Solomon Date: September 29, 2016 Subject Structure for Avoidance of Repatriation Tax We have been discussing potential

William L. Blum and Robert Ladislaw cc: Jeffrey Epstein, Erika Kellerhals, Robert Solomon Date: Septemb

From: William L. Blum and Robert Ladislaw cc: Jeffrey Epstein, Erika Kellerhals, Robert Solomon Date:

he certificate holders," so that VI Trust will not be treated as an "investment trust."' 4 See Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-4(b). s See, e.g., Estate of Bedell v. M , 86 T.C. 1207 (1986). 6 ld. See also Water Res. Control v. 61 TCM 2102 (1991). 7 See Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-4(c). 7 EFTA00582954 3. P

THE SUBPOENA FOR THE CONTENTS OF EPSTEIN'S COMPUTERS, EVEN IF CONSIDERED "PURELY PRIVATE PAPERS," DOES NOT VIOLATE EPSTEIN'S FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE. Lastly, Epstein argues that the subpoena seeks "purely private papers," and that a subpoena demanding those papers vi

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal.'" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). Epstein's Fourth Amendment claim also fails under the post- Boyd case law. Andresen I Maryland, supra , addressed a claim of a Fourth Amendmen

Epstein v. Edwards Page 1 of 1 From: John Beranek > To: wcbiew ; wcbcg Subject: Epstein v. Edwards Date: Mon. Jun 16, 2014 4:06 pm Chet -- I have rev

a case will develop. As a first step, we should considering appearing as an amicus in the Steinberg case in the First District Court of Appeal. The Bedell firm is appellee's counsel in that case and I have done a lot of work with that firm in the past. The issue In this appeal Is going to be the obvio