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

n, 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

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

, 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States I Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

nt, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United State's Attorney's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and

asses the circumstances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "impl

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- by-c

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

341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fi

de whether a witness's silence is justified. United States I Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffman , 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6

unsel 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

, 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States I Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the

nst self-incrimination does not extend to documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations wh

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this 3 EFTA00728618 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 4

effective representation. Accordingly, I assert my federal constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the