Epstein Secrets

and placed in the public portion of the court file O Destroyed 0 Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above A`tancy for: United Stales of Vifierica EFTA00179092 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-64 AND

ry on September 18, 2007. However, 'Witness William Riley did not file an initial motion to quash the grand jury subpoenas, but did file a Reply to the United States' Response to the Intervenor's Motion to Quash. Accordingly, the United States has not previously had the opportunity to respond to the issue raised b

vestigation of these crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The Supreme Court has routinely recognized the grand jury's unique role in the United States' criminal justice system. The grand jury "belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Go

FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNDER SEAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the United States of America's Motion for Permission to File a supplemental Ex Parte Affidavit in support of its Response to the Motion to Quash. Upon review of the motion, it i

84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNITED STATES' SURREPLY TO REPLIES FILED BY WITNESS WILLIAM RILEY AND INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN RE: MOTION TO OUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS UNDER SEAL EFTA0017908

"billing records." -29- EFTA00179128 States v. Mutioz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty AdvisorS, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. III. 1999). In making that showing, blanket asserti

081 (4th Cir. 1981). Under the circumstances, any claim of privilege or work product cannot be accepted without further evidentiary substantiation. See United States'. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1392 (4th Cir. 1996) (where the allegations against one party could not subject another to civil or criminal liability, joi

nce law. Most Cited Cases In a diversity case, court applies federal law to resolve work product claims. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 26(b)(3), 28 U.S.C.A. [5j 04( Federal Civil Procedure 170A €=+ 16 2) 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AX Depositions and Discovery 170AX(E) Discovery and Production

the law relating to inadvertent waiver of the attorney client privilege, not- ing that three distinct approaches had been followed by courts within the United States: a strict waiver approach, fmding waiver whenever a non-privileged disclos- ure occurs; a lenient approach: finding waiver only in the instance of

("Colorable claims of attor- ney-client and work product privilege [are] .. . a textbook example of an entitlement to intervention as of right."); United Stalest. AT & T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1292 (D.C.Cir.1980); Sackman I. Liggett Group, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). In allowing intervention,

attorney, who also represented corporation, where attor- ney was not actively protecting that privi- lege. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 24(a), (aX2), 28 U.S.C.A.; Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 501, 28 U.S.C.A.; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 4503. 6. Witnesses o=>198(1) Existence of attorney-client privilege is based upon poli

(suggesting that in case involving both federal claims and pendent state claims, "both bodies" of priv- ilege law should be considered); Motley 1. Marathon Oil Co., 71 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. hups://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?pbc=BC6E23F98cdestinationr-atp&utid—... 9

the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate it. United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir.2004) (citations omitted); see also United Stales' New- man, 490 1"2d 139, 143 (3d Cir.I974) (in order to be liable as an aider or abettor, the defendant must have participated in the substantive c

ple listed statu- tory offenses, diocesan defendants did not know the offenses were being committed and act with the intent to facilitate them. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2(a), 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 225IA, 2252, 2252A, 2255, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423. 5. Federal Courts e=.15 District court could exercise suppl

ngage in sexual relations with him. Id. at 414. Af- ter a jury found that a fiduciary relation- ship existed between the plaintiff and the diocese, the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit upheld this verdict on appeal, finding that the relation- ship between the plaintiff and the diocese was fiduci

he law of nations or a treaty of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Ms. Cisneros is not alleging that Mr. Aragon's conduct violated a treaty of the United States. Our inquiry thus focuses exclusively on whether Ms. Cisneros has sufficiently alleged a violation of the law of nations, as that term is used in

rsonal injuries caused by stepfather's sexual exploitation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2255; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.; West's V.C.A. § 8.01-328.1. 8. Courts e=12(2.1, 2.15) If defendant transacts any business or has an interest in, uses, or possesses real lib in

. If jur- isdiction does not exist, we are bound to dismiss the suit however long it has been maintained or how far it has traveled. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed2d 760 (1999). 131 Federal jurisdiction here was pleaded in terms of transport of the photos in i

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

, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States I Mulloz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman I Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. , 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. III. 1999). In making that showing, blanket asser

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

requested testimony would not incriminate either William Riley or Riley Kiraly, as evidenced by the fact that neither has moved to quash. In Couch I United States , 409 U.S. 22 (1973), the IRS issued a summons to the defendant's accountant for the defendant's receipts and other tax materials. After receiving t

, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States' Muiioz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman' Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. , 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. Ill. 1999). In making that showing, blanket assert

Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d). Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of cert

930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Muiloz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Furthermore, blanket assertions are not

forum. Cases that cite this headnote Federal Courts @ Terrorism Two officials of Saudi Arabian government did not have such minimum contacts with the United States as to support a finding of general personal jurisdiction, in action alleging their decisions regarding distribution of humanitarian relief funds prov

n re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 purposefully directed his activities toward the United States by making personal contributions to several Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. §§ 442-43.) 19! Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that P

--- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 purposefully directed his activities toward the United States by making personal contributions to several Saudi-based charities. (Federal Compl. §§ 442-43.) 19! Plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing

ircuit agree that there are certain circumstances in which it is appropriate to give priority to the personal jurisdiction inquiry. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578, 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (holding “there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy ... [and] there are circums