Epstein Secrets

ida 3340) Facsimile- FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: JIM EISENBERG E_SQ. DATE: February 5, 2007 FAX NO. PHONE NO. # OP PAGES: FROM: ASSISTANT U. S . ATTORNEY PHONE NO. COMMENTS: 3(1/1_- &at- °L4191-fr\k' -61r ougar&cLau ' V IA P i t 'an t_ I t itifft attia 1 1'6 ffidgAgr. Case No. 08-80

T OF FLORIDA NORTHERN (WEST PALM BEACH) DIVISION FGJ NO. 07-103 (WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS / SEALED ORDER It is hereby ordered that the United States' Sealed Motion for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and the Order granting same be SEALED until further Order of this Court, except that a

new grand jury has been tided and I have enclosed a new subpoena for= MI. As 1 mentioned earlier, Ms is not a target of this investigation and the United States seeks her testimony solely as a victim/winless. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us

F AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto.

adily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions about whom to prosecute because, "[lin addition to assessing the s

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

ecified in paragraphs (fXI) (i) through (f)(l)(iv) of this section, e.g., as when a former employee directs remarks to an employee representing the United Slates as a party or intervenor in a Federal or non-Federal judicial proceeding. A Conner employee does not direct his communication or appearance to a bys

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States v. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United St

urts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S.598, 607-08 (1985). See also Town of-Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) ("[C]ourts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions as to whom to prosecute. The reasons for judicial deference are

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United Stat

courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Waytel. United States, 470 U.S.598, 607-08 (1985). See also Town of Newton'. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) ("[C]ourts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions as to whom to prosecute. The reasons for judicial deference are

and finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. L DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.)

E 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 611' day July, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge 25 EFTA_R1_0 1293460 EFTA02335922 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 TABLE Det

adily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions about whom to prosecute because, "[i]n addition to assessing the s

nd finds that the Government has submitted sufficient evidence to evaluate its claims of privilege. (See DE 238-1) (discussing documents prepared by the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.)

DE 268 is hereby UNSEALED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6ih day July, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United State District Judge 25 EFTA01657776 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 26 of 51 TABLE Detail of Privilege an

adily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396 (1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions about whom to prosecute because, "[i]n addition to assessing the s

nexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S. Ct. 1524, 84 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that "[n]othing in this chapter shall

dily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607 (emphasis added); see also Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 U.S. 386, 396, 107 S. Ct. 1187, 94 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1987) (courts normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions [13] about whom to prosecute be