Epstein Secrets

ant had successfully adjusted to pris- op, was genuinely interested m several reli- gions, and filed grievances for entirely le- gitimate purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 5. [33] Constitutional Law 92 4 1170 92 Constitutional Law 92X First Amendment in General 92X(B) Particular Issues and Applic-

U.S. 225, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 20 Fed.R.Serv.2d 547 (Cite as: 422 U.S. 225, 95 S.O. 2160) Supreme Court of the United States Reversed. UNITED ST ES, Petitioner, Robert Lee NOBLES. No. 74-634. Argued April 23, 1975. Decided June 23, 1975. Defendant was convicted in the United States District

rk an implied waiver of all confidential communications on the same subject mat- ter. Accord von Bulow, 82$ F.2d at 102-03; Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. I. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 306, 316 (2002). The rationale behind our holding is self-evident. When an attorney participates in an extrajudicial meeting or nego

. 0042201 23 EFTA00177962 Page I of 55 Westlaw Page I 531 F.3d 197 (Cite as: 531 F.3d 197) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. UNITED STATES America, Appellee, Donald FELL, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 06-2882-cr. Argued: June 27, 2007. Decided: June 27, 2008. Background: Defendant was con

s Reversed. UNITED ST ES, Petitioner, Robert Lee NOBLES. No. 74-634. Argued April 23, 1975. Decided June 23, 1975. Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Central Dis- trict of California of bank robbery and the Court of Appeals, 501 F.2d 146, affumed in part, reversed in part,

er a particular plea is desirable, since "[e]ffective assistance of counsel includes counsel's informed opinion as to what pleas should be entered." United Stalest Pillar, 416 F. Supp. 887, 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Borial. Keane, 99 F.3d 492, 497 (2d Cir. 1996), citing ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility

in- stance. The court authorized no general `fishing expedition' into the defense files ji or indeed even into the defense 'nvestigat- or's report. a. United States . Wright, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 489 .2d 1181 O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.a

enabling the client to conform his conduct to the dictates of the law and to present le- gitimate claims and dt enses f if litigation ensues. See Upjohn Co. I United States, O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?vi-2.0&mt=EleventhCircuit

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records ... in the hands of an attorney—or p

ida 3340) Facsimile- FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG E_SQ. DATE: February 5, 2007 FAX NO. PHONE NO. # OP PAGES: FROM: ASSISTANT U. S . ATTORNEY PHONE NO. COMMENTS: 3(1/1_- &at- °L4191-fr\k' -61r ougar&cLau ' V IA P i t 'an t_ I t itifft attia 1 1'6 ffidgAgr. Case No. 08-80

T OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS / SEALED ORDER It is hereby ordered that the United States' Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court, except that a

new grand jury has been tided and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= MI. As 1 mentioned earlier, Ms is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/winless. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us

F AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 14 EFTA00086458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. I United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

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

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

he Ten- nessee law of attorney-client privilege. Al- though Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not apply in the instant case, we follow it by analo- I United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395, 101 S.Ct. 677, 685, 66 LEd.2d 584 (1981). In general, the fact of legal consultation or employment, clients' identities, attor

cted First Amendment rights requires showing that the statutory scheme will re- sult in threats, harassment or reprisals to specific individuals. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. It Constitutional Law 0=82(6) Labor Relations 4=18 Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act requirements for the filing

ludes disclosure of communications between attorney and client and does not protect against disclosure of the facts un- derlying the communication. Upjohn Co. 12. The court below erroneously applied the Ten- nessee law of attorney-client privilege. Al- though Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not apply i

nd finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. (See DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.)

DE 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6ih day July, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge 25 EFTA01657776 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 TABLE Detail of Privilege an

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 14 EFTA01657765 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ernment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and asso

/2013 Page 5 of 12 connection with the specific representation." Id. at 619. The Seventh Circuit found this letter brought the case squarely within Upjohn Co. v. United States 449 U.S. 383 (1981), "which explained that factual investigations performed by attorneys as attorneys fall comfortably within the

at the computers contain attorney-client communications, nor were the computers or their contents produced in anticipation of litigation. In Upjohn I United States , 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the Supreme Court made clear that an attorney cannot create a "zone of silence" over factual matters. The Court wrote: the at

not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client EFTA00222960 communications. See Upjohn Co. I United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

nexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S. Ct. 1524, 84 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that "[n]othing in this chapter shall

_00059577 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CCIN(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022401 EFTA 00170127 EFTA01296795 Page 71 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 402, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under c