Epstein Secrets

ding all discovery) provided to you by the State Attorney's Office, and/or Palm Beach County Police Department and/or U.S. Attorney's Office and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Response: Defendant is asserting specific legal objections including but not limited to relying on cer

rious facts have asked whether the government was aware of the documents' existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government's argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed "ordinary business records."

ised of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, i

(4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

plea agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. 7. EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at this time exempt from disclosure

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

ised of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified. fi Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff 'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th C

ised of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified. F2 Epstein's counsel is correct, however, i

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

plea agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office. 7. EPSTEIN, through counsel, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for documents relating to this and the other cases; the FBI denied the request stating the materials are at this time exempt from disclosure

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see ado Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

S AND OB,TECTS LISTED ON ATTACHMENT A. '"Please coordinate MIR ROtntiliance with his subpoena and confirm the date, time, and I ' appearance with S/A I Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: This subpoena shall remain in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting on behalf of the court.

rty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimo

sed of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified' Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in

TA00179122 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell, 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds, 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Cir.

§ 2252A(a)(1), § 2252A(g)( I), and § 1591. 23. After investigations by the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, entered pleas of "guilty" to various Flo

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v, Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000)• Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against