Epstein Secrets

2 United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) 62 United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967) 165 United States v. Gonzalez, No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171 85 United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360 (2d Ci

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts." United 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 a

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

2 United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) 62 United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967) 165 United States v. Gonzalez, No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171 85 United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360 (2d Ci

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts." United 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 a

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

1 United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 176 United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) 43 United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967) 112 United States v. Gonzalez, No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171 58 United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360 (2d Ci

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

omeone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts." United 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 EFTA00

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts." United 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 a

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame