Epstein Secrets

D to bring with you the following document(s) or object(s): Please coordi of this subpoena and confum the date and time of ur a ante with Special Agen Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: Please see additional information on reverse This subpoena shall remain in effect until you are granted leave to depart by the court or

ember I, 2006 9:00am Please coordinate your compliance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your a ranee with Special Agent-Federal Bureau of Investigation, Telephone: Please see additional information on '.et sc This subpoena shall remain in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or

sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and arc therefore generally disfavored. Trammel 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)

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209386 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209427 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209633 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209742 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

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

luding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Trammel v. United States , 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Be

I200. FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301-2211• PH. 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022 Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Email: February 26, 2015 Via Federal Express Federal Bureau of Investigation Attn: FOI/PA Request Reeord/Information Dissemination Section Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice RE: FOL4 Request for pictures, vide

sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and are therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. Unked 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);