Epstein Secrets

es. Epstein's motion to quash was filed on July 17, 2007 before the close of business. See Gov't Resp. at 1. Riley was informed of these matters by Roy Black, Esquire. and did not appear in reliance on the Government's agreement with Roy Black. I Undersigned counsel has been out of the country and just

in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, PA. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miam 1prida 33131 By ROY BLA K, Florida Bar No. Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 17, 2007, a true and correct copy of the forgi

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,- they are overbroad and unpar

cording to information obtained by the local police, one or more of the women so engaged was under the age of 18 at the relevant time. Affidavit of Roy Black, Esq., sworn to July 17, 2007, annexed ("Black Aft") ¶3. Following a 16 month investigation, on July 17, 2006, Mr. Epstein was charged under Florid

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,-they are overbroad and unpart

pstein, but have worked on other cases with Special Agent Special Agent Page 2 of 3 EFTA00179186 and I had lunch together on July 25, 2007, and Roy Black's name came up during our conversation. At that time, I relayed to Special Agent what Mr. Kleiman had told me. I declare under penalty of perjury,

egories of documents and other information which the government believes relevant to the grand jury's investigation.' The court in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), was confronted with a similar issue in the context of a grand jury subpoena for the