Epstein Secrets

arge involving a telephone call made by Epstein while he was on his private jet. During this telephone call, Epstein warned his personal assistant, Lesley Groff, against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida

to the issuance of the subpoena obviously were not matters occurring before the grand jury; instead, they were matters occurring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United Statest Frazier, 944

arding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier order of the magistrate judge. In response, the Government "takes no position" on the motion. Gov't Resp. at 1. Accordingly, this part of the victims' motion should be granted. II. NONE OF THE MATERIALS IN THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE BARRED FROM DISCLOSUR

arge involving a telephone call made by Epstein while he was on his private jet. During this telephone call, Epstein warned his personal assistant, Lesley Groff, against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida

to the issuance of the subpoena obviously were not matters occurring before the grand jury; instead, they were matters occurring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States.. Frazier, 944

ed by evidence in the record." The Government has briefly recounted a few facts in opposition to a small sliver of the victims' proposed facts. See Gov't Resp. to Victims' Motion to Have Facts Accepted at 11-13. But none of these facts are supported by any evidence at all. The Government should have at le

to the issuance of the subpoena obviously were not matters occurring before the grand jury; instead, they were matters occurring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 94

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar