Epstein Secrets

he government that Gonzalez approached him on another occasion for assistance in getting dis- missed a DWI for Jeff Lewis. Castaneda was unsure if Weaver had ultimately been successful in fixing the case. FN7. Castaneda told the government that an individual known as "Chuy" Hinojosa Page 4 of 11 P

xchange for getting the charges dismissed or sentences re- duced. Castaneda's role in this conspiracy was that of middleman, referring "clients" to Weaver, arran- ging meetings, receiving payments, and suggesting strategics for accomplishing fixes. Weavers role on the other hand was that of principal,

he transaction in- volving Jeff Lewis). Predicate Act Six-- referring to the dismissal of a marijuana charge for Silverio Garza-- pertained only to Weaver. FN I6. On appeal, Castaneda asserts four distinct errors that allegedly warrant the re- versal of his conviction. Because we con- clude that the g

asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

ing methamphetamine from Mexico and selling it to customers in the Dallas area." Former ICE Informant Facing Drug Charges. The Miami Herald (7/15, Weaver, 1.09M) reports Guillermo Eduardo Ramirez-Peyro, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) informant, is facing "charges of conspiring to

nterprise seeking to take advantage of a global pandemic to steal hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars from taxpayers is despicable,' Hogan said." Maryland Labor Secretary Tiffany Robinson, "appearing with the Republican governor at a State House news conference, said the division handl

ition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." 14/rice v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Sieuel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998). In improperly attempting to

asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth