Epstein Secrets

ess there is compliance with the applicable provisions. The procedure is mandatory and governs state and federal proceedings and has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court, See U.S. ex rel, Iouhv v. gaze% 340 U.S. 462 (1951). In addition, the Privacy Act (Title S, U.S.C., Section 552a(b), prohibits the release of age

BI has been referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office and assigned to me. The subpoena seeks sworn statements taken during the investigation ofJeffre Edward Epstein , Palm Beach, FL DOB 01/20/53) from the following: I have contacted one of the FBI Special Agents who handled the investigation into Jeffrey Epst

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq, Re: State I. J. Epstein Date: 06/04/2009 Pages: 5 Urgent K For review K Please see attached proposed Order. Please comment K j Please reply K J Please recycle K 1

CONFIDENTIAL SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL RE J. EPSTEIN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012135 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90

1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein’s intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be proven