Epstein Secrets

s conducted by the Florida State Attorney's Office and the USAO-SDFL. See id. at 3 In fact, the NPA states that it was executed "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida." NPA at 2. 8 EFTA00095100 1-2. Thus, in this context, the terms "global" and "stat

After reviewing the facts and circumstances of the negotiation, OPR concluded that "the evidence does not show that [Former USAO-SDFL U.S. Attorney Alex] Acosta, [Former USAO-SDFL supervisor Andrew] Lourie, or Villafafia agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity,

it was executed "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern Distric

ons, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) 102 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 101 iv EFTA00095071 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 78 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 38 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 121 Bryson

nal time, please let me know. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00186709 United States District Court SOUTHERN DIS

u for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent

carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed.' " Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)): In re Grand Jury

ivileges. A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 S.Ct. at 2660; Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the party seeking to quash the

nal time, please let me know. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00186752 United States District Court SOUTHERN DIS

u for your assistance. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent

ivileges. A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 S.Ct. at 2660; Fed.R.Crim.P. 17(c). Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the party seeking to quash the s

y carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to fmd if a crime has been committed.' " Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 701, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 P.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury

o appear and provide testimony and evidence in accordance with the issued subpoenas at the next meeting of the Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorne West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY

rand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes , 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises , the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis o

Ile...LeneA nein Black srcbmck. Kornsparl & Stumpf EFTA00179082 U.S. Department Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY VIA FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Fowler White Burnett 1395 Brickell Ave Fl 14 Miami Florida 33131-3300 Re: Jeffre

ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. AUGUST 3, 2007 PAGE 2 Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this ti

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises, the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis of irrelevan

equesting an early voluntary turnover of the materials subpoenaed. The early voluntary turnover date is prior to September 22. 2006. B Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000177 EFTA00227557 CERTIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS I,

September 22. 2006. B Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES

ivileges. A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 5.O. at 2660; Fed.R.Crim.R. 17(c). Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the party seeking to quash the s