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

nt facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States v. Blackburn, 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz, 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United Stat

questing the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Def

540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla , 23 F.3d 359, 363-65 (11th Cir. 1994) (" Lot S "), the Court articulated the following principles of law w

s that there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States v. Beeks , 167 Fed. Appx 777 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Diaz , 138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Davis , 393 F.3d 540 (5

ceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc. , 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United Stat

esting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein' s Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99). For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and De

ted States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein' s Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99). For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay o

this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. United Stalest Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment, and not "me

roceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.l Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardini stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United State

esting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein' s Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99). For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and De

ted States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein' s Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99). For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay o

this standard, Movants must show that invocation of the privilege in the instant matter will result in certain loss by automatic summary judgment. United Stalest Two Parcels of Real Property, 92 F.3d 1123, 1129 (11th Cir. 1996); Pervis, 901 F.2d at 946-47. This must be an actual adverse judgment, and not "me

roceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co.l Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regardini stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United State

questing the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Def

540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States, Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla , 23 F.3d 359, 363-65 (11th Cir. 1994) (" Lot S "), the Court articulated the following principles of law wit

s that there has been no breach, it has a remedy at law or equity. In this situation, Epstein would be entitled to seek dismissal of the indictment. See United States I Beeks , 167 Fed. Appx 777 (11th Cir. 2006); United States' Diaz , 138 Fed. Appx. 965 (9th Cir. 2005); United States Davis , 393 F.3d 540 (5th Cir.

oceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. I Altina Assocs., Inc. , 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United Stat

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

t facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States I Blackburn , 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission I TRW Inc. , 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United State

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

facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States v. Blackburn , 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. TRW Inc. , 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United Stat

questing the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Def

540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States, Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla , 23 F.3d 359, 363-65 (11th Cir. 1994) (" Lot S "), the Court articulated the following principles of law wit

oceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. I Altina Assocs., Inc. , 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United Stat

questing the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non- Prosecution Agreement between the United States and Def

540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United States, Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla , 23 F.3d 359, 363-65 (11th Cir. 1994) (" Lot S "), the Court articulated the following principles of law wit

oceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. I Altina Assocs., Inc. , 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United Stat

uesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of the proceedings is not necessary and was not contemplated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the United States and De

ted States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this response to the Court's Order requesting the position of the United States on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay Proceedings [DE 99]. For the reasons set forth below, it is the United States' position that a stay of

ceeding does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional infringement.' Id. (quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Assocs., Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536, 540 (M.D. Fl. 1994)). As this Court has previously explained: The law regarding stays of civil actions is well-settled in the Eleventh Circuit. In United State