Epstein Secrets

n federal income tax returns stated cause of action for dis- crimination among religions prohibited by establishment clause of First Amendment. 26 U.S.C.A. § 170; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Conan. Amend. 1. 4. Constitutional Law 4=,84(I) Establishment clause of First Ame

injunction 36. United Stater v. Dionino, 410 US. 1, 17, 93 S.Ct. 764, 773, 35 L-Edid 67 (1973). 37. /I at 16, 93 S.Q. at 772 (quoting Stirone v. United Stater, 361 US. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273. 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960)). EFTA00191835 U.S. I BURZYNSKI CANCER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1313 ateas5M F.2d 1301 (Mb

ce which a prison has not commenced to serve. Ellison r. United State 263 F.2d 395 (10 Cir. 1969); Cain United States, 49 870 (8 Cir. 1 ). In Heflin United States, 868 U.S. 416, 79 S.Ct. 461, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959), the Supreme Court stated that: "Section 2255 is available only to attack a sentence under which

violations, brought action to enforce terms of immunity agreement under United States Department of Justice's (DOJ's) corporate leniency program. The United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Pennsylvania, Timothy J. Savage, J., 352 F.Supp2d 553, enjoined prosecu- tion, and government appealed.

The Supreme Court has observed that the executive branch "has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case," United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed2d 1039 (1974), and the Gov- ernment therefore argues that courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin a

r dis- crimination among religions prohibited by establishment clause of First Amendment. 26 U.S.C.A. § 170; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Conan. Amend. 1. 4. Constitutional Law 4=,84(I) Establishment clause of First Amend- ment prohibits denominational preferences, includi

ms Against the Government 131 Neither the United States, its agen- cies, nor its officials acting in their official capacities, may be sued without the United States' specific consent's The Federal Tort Claims Act 7 permits certain claims to be asserted against the United States, as sov- ereign, and its agents bu

States v. Awn; 401 U.S. 601, 603, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 1115, 28 1...Ed.2d 356 (1971) (firearm registration requirement did not violate Fifth Amendment); Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53, 88 S.Ct. 697, 705, 19 1.-Ed.2d 889 (1968) (tax regis- tration requirements violated fifth amend- ment because re

under the Act Is that requiring the dart. 1447 privilege applies only to past and present criminal acts, the exception is a very nap row one. In United Stater v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.241 366 (1971), the Court emphasized the narrowness of the fifth amendment privilege's application

trict of Rhode Is- land, sitting by designation. TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. The matter is before us on appeal by the United States from a denial by the United States District Court for the District of O 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%7

tion; in murder cases ap- peals `are generally before the Court not Page 23 of 24 Page 23 later than three weeks after the convic- tion.' " Ward 6United States, --- U.S. ----, 76 S.Ct. 3, 1066, 1 L.Ed.2d 25 (1956). When Justice Frankfurter expressed these concerns, the case before him had been pending o

y, or any evidence de- rived directly or indirectly from that testi- mony, against the witness in a criminal prosecution. See generally Kastigar v. United Ste i 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct 1653, 32 LEd2d (1972). In contrast to trans- actional immunity, use immunity does not prohibit the government from prosec

lege in refusing to comply with the statute provided a complete defense to his prosecution for failing to register and pay the occupational tax." Marchetti explicitly rejected the notion that the fifth amendment privilege offers protection only as to past and present acts. 390 U.S. at 53, 88 S.Ct at 7

to prosecute for future tax viola- tions with respect to the Cayman Islands funds. EFTA00191783 U.S. HARVEY Cas al Mr 1431 filth Cur. lass) In Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. the general rule that the fifth amendment 39, 88 S.Ct. 69'7, 19 L.Ed.20:1 889 (1968) the Supreme Court held that the fi

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

TA00179106 Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and 'real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he declares that in so d

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

of the Fifth Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti I United States , 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). EFTA00222995 Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he declar

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

of the Fifth Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States , 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). EFTA00211779 Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he decla

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

of the Fifth Amendment is whether the claimant is confronted by substantial and `real,' not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti I United States , 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968). Furthermore, a witness is not exonerated from answering questions merely because he declares that in so