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

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to

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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

lculation of the offense levels under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) §§ 2G2.I and 2G2.2 (1998).FNI I FNI I. The 1998 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual was applied in this case due to concerns about possible ex post facto problems that might arise from subsequent amend

prft—H... 12/18/2007 EFTA00191996 Page 13 of 13 77 Fed.Appx. 371 77 Fed.Appx. 371, 2003 WL 22331999 (C.A.6 (Ohio)) (Cite as: 77 Fed.Appx. 371) United States' Lyckman, 235 F.3d 234, 237-40 (5th Cir.2000). The term "sadism," which is the most relevant to this case, is defined as the " infliction of pain u

ent when it is based on consent from a third party whom the agents reasonably believed (even if erroneously) to have common rt.over the premises. United Stater 979 F.2)77, 79 (6th Cir.1992) (quoting Illinois Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 93, III L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)). B. Attempted Enticement of A M

9 Page 9 of 27 Westiaw. 495 F.3d 536 495 F.3d 536 (Cite as: 495 F.3d 536) U.S. II. Johnson C.A.7 (Ind.),2007. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Charles M. JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-3968. Argued April 10, 2007. Decided Jul

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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

privileges in federal court pros. wsings " 1560 shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." The privilege appellants assert, as stated in their motions to intervene, is based solely on state law. [FN

and jury than to protect from delay the progress of the trial after an indictment has been found." Id. at 327, 60 5.Q. at 542; see also Di Bella v. United States. 369 U.S. 121, 124, 82 S.Q. 654, 656-57, 7 L.P.d.2d 614 (1962) ("This insistence on finality and prohibition of piecemeal review discourage undue

4C rAA 0010V41JOI VaAv tiff, IL, 832 F.2d 554 832 F.2d 554, 24 Fed. R. Evid. Sm. 275 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554) H United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. In re GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS—Subpoena to State Attorney's Office. Thomas H. Greene, Dawson A. McQuaig, Jake Godbold, Don McClure, Intervenors- A

e, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial Branch is limited to assessing counsel's public deeds." In re United States 298 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). In short, petitioners are not entitled to "test the bona fides" of the discretionary decision made by prosecutor

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00601686 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

e, and so on, are for the Attorney General and the President to evaluate. The Judicial Branch is limited to assessing counsel's public deeds." In re United States 298 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). In short, petitioners are not entitled to "test the bona fides" of the discretionary decision made by prosecutor

ative or corrective opportunities if provided. 5 EFTA00799968 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 6 of 11 Seventh Circuit observed, "[h]ow the United States reaches its litigating positions, who said what to whom within the prosecutor's office, and so on, are for the At

rts an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in inter- state or foreign commerce, or in any common- wealth. territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal of- fense, s

omson Reuters, West and their affiliates. EFTA00598999 wgithw Page I 627 F.3d 622 (Cite as: 627 F.3d 622) C United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald J. McGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-1597. Argued Nov. 9, 2010. Decided Dec. 2, 201