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

oenaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party—the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly. the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th

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

enaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party--the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly, the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th

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

enaed party had no interest in seeking to vindicate their derivative rights. Indeed, the subpoenaed party--the State of Florida as represented by the State Attorney-- had as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system. Accordingly, the Perlman exception does not give us jurisdiction to review th