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

lled, instead, the contents were voluntarily created by the persons who used them.15 See, e.g., United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster, 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or informati

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

ed, instead, the contents were voluntarily created by the persons who used them. F15 See, e.g., United States' Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster , 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or informa

rring admission of plea negotiations; the alleged victims intended to admit the evidence of the plea negotiations to prove violations of the CVRA by the United States, not to be used against the alleged perpetrator. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 410, 28 U.S.C.A. [12] Federal Civil Procedure 170A f=1604(2) 170A Federal Civ

s. United States I. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir.2006); Pickett I. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir.2000). And the issue of whether to r

rlman doctrine allows an intervenor to file an interlocutory ap- peal of an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554, 556-58 (11th Cir.1987). "This exception, derived from Perlman I. United States,... permits an order denying a motion to quash to be

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

, instead, the contents were voluntarily created by the persons who used them. F15 See, e.g., United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster , 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or informa

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

, the contents were voluntarily created by the persons who used them. EFTA00222988 See, e.g., United States' Doe , 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 393 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004); In re Foster , 188 F.3d 1259, 1269 (10th Cir. 1999). This reasoning applies even when the documents or informa

e any matter occurring before the grand jury except in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3). Notification of this disclosure will be provided to the United States District Court who empaneled the federal grand jury in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(B). Ft 7. The United States respectfully requests th

informs the Court that the transcripts of the State's grand jury proceedings relate to the substance of a federal grand jury investigation. See In m Grand Jury Proceedings , 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987). 6. Further in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States informs the Court that i