Epstein Secrets

ect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court. This subpoena is issued upon application of the United Stairs of America o. Australian venue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 DATE August 18.2006 S. Attorney Case No. 0 3-8073 • lc not applicable, enter 'none To be

ubpoenaed. The early voluntary turnover date is prior to September 29, 2006. BY: Sincerely, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ASSISTANT UNITED STATE ATTORNEY Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000182 EFTA00227562 CERTIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS I, the undersigned, , declare that I am: employed

the District Attorney is unable to rebut the presumption that the federal grand jury subpoena is reasonable. (41 Regarding the relevancy question, the United States has set forth in some detail, both in its motion papers and in its in camera submission, the reasons underlying the need for the state grand Jury r

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

on behalf of the court. (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATEL September I, 2006 This subpoena it issued upon application umber of Assistant U.S Attorney of the Unitod States of America enuc, lute L 33401-6235 Case No. 08-80736-CV-NIARRA EFTA00227522 • •••••••••• United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO

(11(21(3) It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 561

until, at the earliest, a suspect's initial appearance before a judicial officer. U.S. Const. Amend. 6. *1246 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah Co

words of the statute as they are commonly and ordinarily understood and must construe the statute so each of its provisions is given full effect." P United States it McLymont, 45 F.3d 400, 401 (I I th Cir. 1995). Therefore, "[w]e do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire

nt Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001). We are bound to "presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said." Id. (quoting P. United States it Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1998) (en bane)); see alsol° Keene Corp., 508 U.S. at 208, 113 S.Ct. 2035. Therefore, under the plain la

the Majority, Judge Tjoflat's concurring opinion, and I agree that the Executive has exclusive and complete authority over charging decisions. See? li United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) ("[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to deci

n motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive."); see also United States v. R. Enters., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, III S.Ct. 722, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (distinguishing the standard for judicial review of motions to suppress subpoenas is

the District Attorney is unable to rebut the presumption that the federal grand jury subpoena is reasonable. [4] Regarding the relevancy question, the United States has set forth in some detail, both in its motion papers and in its in camera submission, the reasons underlying the need for the state grand jury r

ecial relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and are therefore generally disfavored. Tranunel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561

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

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292. 297-98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561

the United States, advised that her January 2001 record was the return from her London, England trip 'The April 2001 CBP record was her return to the United States' ould not recall her travel from advised that her United States March and May 2001 CPB records! Passport was Australia. turned over to the United

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

[1][2][3] It is well-established that a federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, 111 S.Q. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United Stares v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (

Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of cert

cordance with its broad mandate to investigate possible criminal activity, a federal grand jury has few limitations placed on its subpoena powers. R. Enters., 498 U.S. at 297-98, Ill S.Ct. at 726. "A grand jury 'may compel the production of evidence or the testimony of witnesses as it considers appropr