Epstein Secrets

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

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561

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

cordance with its broad mandate to investigate possible criminal activity, a federal grand jury has few limitations placed on its subpoena powers. R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 297-98, Ill S.Ct. at 726. "A grand jury 'may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropr

cute Epstein, maintaining he committed no federal crimes. However, following a September 7, 2007 meeting with Epstein's defense team, U.S. Attorney Alexander R. Acosta" notified Epstein's team that "our Office [has] decided to proceed with the indictment." 3 Despite this statement, the former U.S. Attorney subseque

ediate" threat of future CVRA violations. Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected Ms. Wild's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over Acosta, that she had already had the opportunity to participate in an Epstein- related hearing in N

n motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive."); see also United States v. R. Enters., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, III S.Ct. 722, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (distinguishing the standard for judicial review of motions to suppress subpoenas is

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

(11(21(3) It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 561