Epstein Secrets

Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. Kellen would then bring the girl u

would be introduced to Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant, who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number. Ms. Kellen would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition to other furnishings. There were photograph

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

Tapes or transcripts of any and all proceedings before the Grand Jury on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, referring or relating to Jeffrey Epstein and/or Sarah Kellen, including but not limited to witness testimony, statements made by any member of the State Attorney's Office, and instructions given by any member

rring or relating to Jeffrey Epstein and/or Sarah Kellen, including but not limited to witness testimony,

tate grand jury records as part of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcata, J., held that federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police office

United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 'Sarah is one of Epstein's personal assistants. -5- EFTA00179104 ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The

protection of the attorney-client privilege, since their existence is a fact and not a 'communication.'" Id. at *2 (citing Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 391). The District Court noted that if the boxes had never been removed from the home and the government had learned of their existence only through the use of a protected