Epstein Secrets

as "devoid of any badgering or harass- ment." Id. Looking to the totality of the circum- stances considered by the district court, we con- cluded, in Santiago, that the district court's volun- tariness finding was not clearly erroneous. Id. Sim- ilarly, we must conclude that Mr. Johnson's concern that he m

. However, Mr. Johnson himself stated that at no time did he feel threatened or coerced. With res t to the second submission, in United States I Santiago. 428 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir.2005), we determined that a defendant had con- sented freely and voluntarily to a search despite his claim that officer

ages of a prepubescent fe- male known as Jane Doe. Images of this young girl had been found on several individuals' computers and were labeled with Jane Doe's actual name. NCMEC analysts used this information to locate the girl in Indianapolis, Indiana. Law enforcement officials interviewed Jane Doe. Sh

hand 59:17 64:1065:13,18 64:3 163:18 165:1 62:4 80:24 82:15 66:14 68:6 69:3,5 sanctum 69:25 167:7,20 168:6,17 113:24 114:15 69:16 72:6 74:9 Santiago 2:21 4:11 169:1,4,7,11 127:21 74:17,19,25 77:22 sat 20:2 106:21 Scarola's 121:2,5 secrecy 69:2 78:2,18 79:4,7 Saturday 27:15 129:18 secret

riod and say, You 25 know, I should have realized there was something that were being prosecuted on behalf of throe young 1 woman: M., B.N. and Jane Doe. And w➢ will refer to them when I talk to you about them in that ➢ame way, 4 referring to sham by those initial➢ and that 5 pseudonym. 4 Desc

d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188 United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

case. AUSA-1 also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00077698 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st

d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188 United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

case. AUSA-1 also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00039513 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st

898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 120, 125 United States v. Samsonov, 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 177 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 52 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 120, 121 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

dge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netburn, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. 1). Subsequently,

of implication Unit States' Dudley, 62 F.3d 1275, 1278 (10th Cir. 1995); Oiled States Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991); United States Santiago, 826 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1987). "[There is no conflict between Rule 46(f) and the Bail Reform Act; the Rule and the Act are complementary and form a

8's eighteenth birthday, and when Jane Doe #19 was seventeen years old. [NB: The police report describes a pattern of activity, including dates when Jane Doe #18 was seventeen years old.] Neither Jane Doe #18 nor #19 ever returned to Epstein's home. Although we have not yet obtained Jane Doe #18's teleph

287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188 United States v. Samsonov, No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269 United States v. Santiago, 987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75 United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180 United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp.

case. AUSA- I also does not believe she ever received any such discovery materials. (Ex. 4 at 6). 66 EFTA00103091 requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its st

ct the Intervenors from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." See Looney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LENS 48349, at *5; Irizarry- Santiago'. Essilor Industries, 293 F.R.D. 100, 104 (D. P.R. 2013). The Intervenors include not only the third-party client whose non-prosecution agreement is

by-the ttemeyls-Offieer Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That-pleading-was-the-first-publie mention-ef-the-neit-preseeution-agreement-and-the-fifst-diselesere-to-MirE4wards-(ead-thus-te