Epstein Secrets

same things that you had asked me to do earlier is improper meddling in civil litigation. Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012578 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Eso. DECEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 OF 5 already been submitted to the Office on seve

Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavit has never been filed with the Court. If, in fact, you are referring to the Ex Parte Declaration of Joseph Recarey that was filed in response to the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, it was filed both under seal and ex parte, so no one should have access to

Much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Recarey’s investigation that have HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012578

r's Facsimile Number: 561-833-7970 Approved: Brief Description of Communication Faxed: Two subpoenas: 1) William Riley and 2) Custodian of Records, Riley Kiraly . WARNING ( Informotion attached fo the cover sheet is U.S. Goverment Property. If you arc not the intended recipient of this information, disclosu

I do not recall whether S/A Malone was present. Detective Recarey summarized the investigation into state criminal

properly charge the case before presenting it for federal investigation and prosecution. In May 2006, I met with S/A Kuyrkendall and PBPD Detective Joe Recarey in the 4th Floor Conference Room at the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach. I do not recall whether S/A Malone was present. Detective Recare

ecarey in the 4th Floor Conference Room at the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach. I do not recall whether S/A Malone was present. Detective Recarey summarized the investigation into state criminal sexual conduct involving Epstein and his personal assistants. Briefly, Epstein, through his persona

h Lourie and Villafafia handwritten notes 59 5/21/2007 Subpoena to Paul A. Lavery 60 6/18/2007 Subpoena to Witham Riley 61 «18/2007 Subpoena to Riley Kiraly 62 7/18/2007 Email from Villafaita to Matt Menthe! regarding Roy Black objection to subpoenas addressed to William Riley and Riley Kiraly 63 7/

ers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Affidavit, one of the computers was in an area th

oenaed person can assert his own Fifth Amendment privilege. [CITE] The computers and their contents are not the personal papers of William Riley or Riley Kiraly, so the Boyd analysis does not apply to this situation at all. Second, Boyd 's statement that "purely private papers" cannot be obtained through com