Epstein Secrets

dure do not allow them to intervene as parties to a prosecution." In re Amy Unknown, F.3d 2011 WL 988882 at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2011). See also United Stases' Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, *Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 was adopted on April 23, 2008 and made effective on December 1, 2008. While this was after most

3/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES I JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDI

he agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

d the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States' BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reasoned that because § 3771(d)(3) provided for the assertion of CVRA rights "in the district c

"criminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby' Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States' Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arr

nsel have had access to the subpoenaed computers since at least October 2005, when they were removed from Epstein's home, and they have known about the United States' attempts to locate those computers for at least two months, when a subpoena for the same items was served upon Paul Lavery, another private investig

n had standing to assert these challenges, the subpoenas are not unreasonable and do not violate any act of production privilege. For these reasons, the United States asks the Court to deny the Motion to Quash and to order the prompt production of the requested items and the witnesses' appearances before the Grand

papers of any kind. The notion that the Fifth Amendment rotects the privacy of papers originated in Boyd I United States , . . but our decision in Fisher United States , . .. sounded the death knell for Boyd . Several of Boyd 's express or implicit declarations [had] not stood the test of time, . . . and its privac

tigation. The right to effective assistance of counsel does not attach until adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against a defendant. Kirby. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682 (1972). For this reason, the Sixth Amendment does not apply to a grand jury investigation, and a demand for information rel

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United Stat

criminal prosecution" does not commence with the filing of a complaint and issuance of an arrest warrant, but only upon the return of an indictment. Kirby. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-690 (1972). See also United States Pace, 833 KM 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1987) (filing of complaint and issuance of arres

in the case). The U.S. Attorney’s Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States’ Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2’s Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

endment prosecution also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that “the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warr

internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). 7 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra not

e company." US officials also pressed Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro "on his efforts to call Brazilian election integrity into question and said the United States had confidence in Brazil's ability to carry out free elections, the National Security Council's senior director for the Western Hemisphere, Juan Gon

(8/9, 6:46 p.m. EST, story 8, 1:30, Muir, 6.23M) reported the Pentagon is "acknowledging Afghanistan is clearly not headed in the right direction." Kirby was shown saying, "The Secretary continues to believe that the Afghan forces have the capability, they have the capacity to make a big difference o

in the case). The U.S. Attorney's Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States' Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

nternal quotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 75 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). 76 See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). ” OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra n

following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and proximate

t) the following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and pr

e government invades that privilege. It matters little whether the intrusion occurred prior to the initiation of formal adversary proceedings, see Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972), because the right to a fair trial could be crippled by government inter

ials. The proponent of the privilege bears the burden to establish its existence, United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871, 876 (4th Cir.I 984); United States v. Covington & Burling, 430 F.Supp. 1117, 1122 (D.D.C.I 977), and absent the timely assertion of attorney-client privilege for each specific commun