Epstein Secrets

ited States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567,570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the fac

e this is fine for you to disclose this in formation to the government based on the validly issued grand jury subpoena"); cf. (id. at 4 (Chief Judge McMahon describing Chemical Bank as saying "the proper procedure [for the production of documents] is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the

(07/30, Goldbaum, Rehman), Washington Post (07/30, Noack, Hussain, Khan), CBS News (07/30, Broadcast), CNN (07/30, Saifi, Goodwin), Reuters (07/30, Ahmad, Mehsud), BBC News (07/30, Davies, Durbin), The Guardian (07/30, Janjua), New York Post (07/30, Reyes), The Hill (07/30, Oshin), Independent (07/30,

ces as "unduly harsh and unjust," and condemned the FBI's involvement in radicalizing them. According to the article, the judge, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon, described the men as being entrapped by overzealous FBI agents and a questionable informant into a scheme they would not have otherwise considered

(07/30, Goldbaum, Rehman), Washington Post (07/30, Noack, Hussain, Khan), CBS News (07/30, Broadcast), CNN (07/30, Saifi, Goodwin), Reuters (07/30, Ahmad, Mehsud), BBC News (07/30, Davies, Durbin), The Guardian (07/30, Janjua), New York Post (07/30, Reyes), The Hill (07/30, Oshin), Independent (07/30,

es as "unduly harsh and unjust," and condemned the FBI's involvement in radicalizing them. According to the article, the judge, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon, described the men as being entrapped by overzealous FBI agents and a questionable informant into a scheme they would not have otherwise considered,

2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No. 10 Cr. 131 (PKC), 2011 WL 5041456 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21,2011) 243 United States

der is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited." (Id. at 3-4). 6. Proceedings before a. Chief Judge McMahon Mich 26,2019 Hearing Judge Sweet passed away in March 2019 before ruling on the Government's application. After Judge Sweet's death, but before the

ted States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the fac

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

ted States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the fac

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

ed States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] 112 EFTA00095204 raised by an affidavit of a person with personal k

eir' ginndell in the altemalEMENty, both Challudge firTihron and rt ige that Martindell applied allialliEleappan under that framewial As chAllige McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government estab

ted States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ("ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the fac

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (