Epstein Secrets

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

he defendant invites the Court to engage in a balancing test that weighs the prejudice to the defendant against the Government's reasons for delay. (Del Mot. 7 at 5,6 n.4). This Court should reject the defendant's invitation. The defendant cites United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 n.7 (5th Cir.

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February