Epstein Secrets

ai User name: Cell Lccation(CL): AUPAucilli, BR•Bristol, BO•Bushaell, CH=Chiefland, CL•Ciewistan, DB•Daytona, PL•Plagler. PX•Plorida Mays. M•Port Myers. PP-Fort Pierce. FW•Fort Walton, OVeSainesville. JX•Jacksonville, LC•Lake City, LB•Leesburg, MI•Miami, NA-Marianna, MB-Melbourne, MX•Mexico Beach, O

tai User Names Call Locaticel(CL): M.Aucilla, MaBristol, 80.8ushnell, CM.Chlefland, CL.Clewlston, 00.Daytona, FL.Flagler, FK•Florida Keys, FM.Fort Myers, FP•Fort Pierce, FW.Fort Walton, CV.Gainesville. JX..Jacksonville, LC.Lake City, LB.Leesburg, MA-Marianna, MB-Melbourne, M.:Semis° Beach, OCeOcales

Beach. CC-Ocala. OR-Orlando, PL•Palatka, PcmPanana City, PS•Pensatola, R.7•Port St Joe, SI*SanDestin, SA•Sarasota, TH•Tallahassee, TA.Tampa, %%seer° Heath, HA-Naples. LX.Lakoland, 78•Thowasville, SBuSebring Rate Cede: SR141=/Bundle 400 R Rate Period (Pd.): P.Peak, 0.0ff Peak, N-Nights Feature: C.Cal

3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 86 United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224

2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 119

is consent). Especially in view of the courts' well-established deference to the Government's choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous 105 EFTA00100072 investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States

hat each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor."' Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 86 United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224

. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190

is consent). Especially in view of the courts' well-established deference to the Government's choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous 105 EFTA00077737 investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States

that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 86 United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224

. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190

is consent). Especially in view of the courts' well-established deference to the Government's choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous 105 EFTA00039552 investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States

that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 152, 159, 162 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 59 United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 105, 110 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 159 United States v. Nejad, 18 Cr. 224 (AJ

r. 2002) 82 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 50 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 109 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 93, 94 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 43 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.

is consent). Especially in view of the courts' well-established deference to the Government's choice of investigatory methods, see United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 843 (2d Cir. 1982), the burden of establishing outrageous investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.

that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 86 United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224

2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 119