Roy Black affidavit supporting Epstein motion to quash subpoenas, July 2007

EFTA00179028¶

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA¶

GRAND JURY MATTER¶

FILED UNDER SEAL¶

IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM ISSUED TO WILLIAM RILEY AND RILEY KIRALY¶

FGJ 07-103 (WPB)/No. OLY -64¶

AFFIDAVIT OF ROY BLACK, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS¶

STATE OF FLORIDA	)
	) ss:
COUNTY OF DADE	)

ROY BLACK, an attorney at law, duly sworn, deposes and says:¶

1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the State of Florida and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

2. As detailed further below, I am counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, the movant herein. It is my intention herein not to waive the attorney-client, attorney work-product or any other privileges, and I have no authority to do so. I make this affidavit solely to provide sufficient facts to support Mr. Epstein’s motion to intervene and to quash the subpoenas duces tecum issued to William Riley and Riley Kiraly which make identical requests, copies of which are annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”.

3. In or around September or October 2005, I was consulted and retained by Mr. Epstein to represent him in connection with an investigation being conducted by the State

EFTA00179029¶

Attorney in Palm Beach County. I understood that the State Attorney was investigating allegations that Mr. Epstein had paid women to provide him with massages in his home and that one or more of the women were alleged to have been under the age of 18 at the time of the massage. It was further alleged that during the course of one or more of the massages, sexual activity may have occurred.¶

4. In connection with my representation of Mr. Epstein, in or about September or October 2005 I retained the firm of Riley Kiraly, private investigators, to assist me in my representation of Mr. Epstein. I began thereafter to work in particular with licensed investigator William Riley. Without disclosing any work done by Mr. Riley or his firm on Mr. Epstein’s behalf and at my direction, any actions thereafter taken by him or the firm were taken in connection with the legal representation of Mr. Epstein.

5. On July 17, 2006, Mr. Epstein was charged by a grand jury sitting in Palm Beach County with one count of solicitation of a prostitute, a third degree felony. That charge is pending.

6. Both prior to the charge being brought and thereafter I and other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein were provided with open disclosure of the State’s evidence. As a result, I have had the opportunity to review all or virtually all of the evidence obtained by the State in its investigation. Included in the material I have reviewed are the audio and/or video taped sworn statements of 18 witnesses, transcripts of all 18 of those recorded sworn statements, the transcript of one additional sworn statement, and over 125 pages of documents prepared by the Palm Beach Police Department which detail every sworn statement obtained by detectives, every interview conducted by detectives, all their investigative efforts and all the evidence gathered. These documents include the entire police file, as well as the probable cause affidavits

2¶

EFTA00179030¶

prepared by Palm Beach detectives and the application for a search warrant of Mr. Epstein’s home.¶

7. Reviewing these materials has afforded me a thorough understanding of the factual bases for any allegations that have been, or could have been, made against Mr. Epstein.

8. In or around January 2007, a federal grand jury in this District began a parallel investigation of Mr. Epstein to determine whether any federal laws were broken by Mr. Epstein’s alleged conduct. We understood the conduct being scrutinized by the federal grand jury was the same as the subject of the State prosecution. Indeed, during the course of the federal investigation, prosecutors asked for and were provided with copies of the 18 recorded sworn witness statements, and further asked for copies of the transcripts of those sworn statements.

9. That the two investigations examine the same alleged conduct is also clear from the attached letter of the Chief of the Palm Beach Police Department expressing the Department’s displeasure with the actions of the state grand jury and State Attorney’s Office, and explaining he was referring the matter to federal authorities in order to initiate a federal investigation of the facts. See Letter of Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police, dated July 24, 2006, annexed as Exhibit “B”. At the same time, the Palm Beach Police Department both publicly released copies of its files, including the 87 page police report and probable cause affidavits prepared by its detectives, and publicly announces its intentions to bring the investigation to federal authorities due to the Department’s dissatisfaction with the State Attorney’s handling of the matter. See News Articles, annexed as Exhibit “C”.

10. As part of that subsequent parallel federal investigation, I and other attorneys representing Mr. Epstein have repeatedly met with and spoken to federal prosecutors directing

3¶

EFTA00179031¶

the investigation. Again, those discussions have afforded me and other counsel an opportunity to understand the factual bases for any charges that could purportedly be brought.¶

11. I understand from my conversations with federal prosecutors that the federal statutes being considered are potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §2423 (travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity) and 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), use of the internet or other means of interstate communication to persuade, entice or coerce another to engage in unlawful sexual activity.

12. I can state without any hesitation, based on my knowledge of the evidence being reviewed, there have been no claims, nor is there any factual support for the making of any claims, that Mr. Epstein ever, directly or indirectly, used a computer to locate, to entice, to solicit, to coerce, or to persuade any woman to engage in any unlawful sexual activity. Nor is there any claim or reference to the use or display of any web based or computer based pornography. Further, there are no references whatever to the use of computers in connection with the alleged conduct at issue here.

13. In short, I have had a rare opportunity to view at least the whole of the State’s evidence, which was turned over to federal authorities as part of their grand jury investigation, and to discuss any additional federal evidence gathered during the federal grand jury investigation. At no time has any potential claimant or any prosecutor ever mentioned the use of a computer by Mr. Epstein to engage in any wrongdoing.

14. These subpoenas were not issued in a vacuum. They are simply the most recent in a series of highly intrusive and unusual attempts to acquire highly personal and/or privileged information concerning Mr. Epstein that can have no relevance whatever to the investigation, including Mr. Epstein’s personal tax returns (see Letter of Assistant United

4¶

EFTA00179032¶

States Attorney, dated November 16, 2006, annexed as Exhibit “D”), medical records including treatment notes of Mr. Epstein’s treatment by a chiropractor (see Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated March 13, 2007, to Dr. Thomas Rofrano annexed as Exhibit “E”), and now, invasion of the defense camp by seeking records of the investigative work performed by Mr. Riley on behalf of your affiant engaged as Mr. Epstein’s counsel in the very same investigation.¶

15. While the propriety of those other subpoenas is not at issue here, the subpoenas to Mr. Riley and to his firm are. When it was pointed out to prosecutors that internal Department of Justice rules require, inter alia, that issuance of the subpoenas be predicated on the pre-approval of the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division under the United States Attorneys’ Manual (“USAM”), §9-11.255, the question as to whether such approval had been obtained was simply ducked in an exchange of correspondence. See Letter of Roy Black, Esq., to

Assistant United States Attorney, dated July 13, 2007, and the letter from Ms.¶

in response, annexed as Exhibits “F” and “G”, respectively. Though such guidelines create no third party rights, the fact that the required approval evidently was not obtained highlights the continuing overreaching of this investigation.¶

16. Moreover, quite apart from whether the required steps were taken internally to obtain approval before issuing the subpoenas, I also challenge whether, as a substantive matter, the government could meet the internal guidelines necessary for issuing a subpoena seeking information relating to the representation of a client, as set forth in USAM §9-13.410.

17. I also want to address the matter of attorney-client communications and attorney work-product. While, for purposes of this motion, we are not conceding the existence of any computers that would be responsive to the subpoena, to the extent there are any such computers, they would contain documents that are clearly attorney-client communications and attorney

5¶

EFTA00179033¶

work-product. Though for the reasons set forth in the motion the subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety, to the extent the Court allows the government to review the contents of the computer, I respectfully submit that a procedure must be instituted to allow for the protection of Mr. Epstein’s attorney-client communications and attorney work-product.¶

ROY BLACK¶

Sworn to before me this 17th day of July 2007.¶

Notary Public¶

WANDA GOMEZ¶

MY COMMISSION # DD 248892¶

EXPIRES: November 22, 2007¶

Bonded Thru Budget Notary Services¶

STAMP/SEAL¶

Personally known ___ OR Produced identification ___¶

Type of Identification Produced: ___¶

6¶

EFTA00179034¶

EXHIBIT A¶