Epstein Secrets

3 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) 216 United States v. Martinez, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1995 WL 10849 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) 77 United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397 (2d Cir. 2012) 248 United States v. Mast, 735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1984) 144 United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

3 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) 216 United States v. Martinez, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1995 WL 10849 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) 77 United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397 (2d Cir. 2012) 248 United States v. Mast, 735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1984) 144 United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

(citing Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957)); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397, 398 (2d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, overt acts that may, on their own, be untimely can nevertheless serve as direct evidence of the

ranscript, no contact women_ the ant at nallavernment ongation. (Def. Mot. 3 at 1). Instead, ChiefJudgeltNahon's cAlgaismore specific: rearing Chemical figgrand desire to avoid "a Chemical Bank kind OREM5n," Chief Judge Mahon asked about cont between the two parties "prior to the issuance of the sub

3 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) 216 United States v. Martinez, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1995 WL 10849 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) 77 United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397 (2d Cir. 2012) 248 United States v. Mast, 735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1984) 144 United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2

NY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judg

) (citing Grunwald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957)); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Mason, 479 F. App'x 397, 398 (2d Cir. 2012). 58 egar ess, e su sequent mvitatton emonstrates t e grooming an sex acts in Lon on were part of conspiraci

s investigation and the issuance of the subpoena. Additionally, and in light of the Government's prior arguments to Chief Judge McMahon relating to Chemical Bank,40 the Government attempted to address the misconduct at issue in that case: namely the production of confidential documents without seeking m