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

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[t]he Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

CE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July , 2007, the foregoing document and the Declaration of Joseph Recarey will be served via hand delivery on Attorney Roy Black, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The same documents will be served on William Richey, counsel for William Riley and Riley Kiraly, via Federal Express.

ccordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio , 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary

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

R. Crim. P. Rule 17(c). See, e.g., R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 299 (Rule 17(c) requires that grand jury subpoenas be reasonable); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973) ("[tjhe Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms to be regar

TE 1300. MIAMI. FL 33131 Telephone: SIM On behalf of (select one): 7eCCrey erste ;71 K Plaintiff K Defendant SEALED DOCUMENT TRACKING FORM Name: ROY BLACK, ESQ. Date sealed document filed: 8/7/2007 If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: GRAND JURY PROCEEDING If sealed pursuant to previously en

Accordingly, it is a well-recognized principle that courts should not intervene in the grand jury process absent compelling reason. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1973). A district court also should be mindful of a target's attempts to "saddle a grand jury with mini-trials and preliminary