Epstein Secrets

a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t

s "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Ame

a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t

s "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Ame

a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t

s "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Ame

a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t

s "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Viliegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Ame

a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t

s "are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded his legitimate expectation of privacy rather than that of a third party." United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1333 (2d Cir. 1990). Ultimately, the Fourth Ame

tates v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 25 ii EFTA00028931 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) 20 United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992) 25 United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) 21 United States v.

rn District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over defamation against Maxwell—that there was an 4 EFTA00028937 --- PAGE BREAK --- "ongoing criminal investigation" into Max

United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 June 8, 2009) 25 ii EFTA00029102 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) 20 United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1992) 25 United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) 21 United States v.

rn District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over defamation against Maxwell—that there was an 4 EFTA00029108 --- PAGE BREAK --- "ongoing criminal investigation" into Max