Epstein Secrets

n response to probative evidence offered against them." F.T.C. v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1252, fn. 4 (S.D.Fla.,2007), citing Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 328, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). However, there exists a well recognized exception to the general rule

65 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 U.S.,) at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; [ id.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fift

in response to probative evidence offered against them." F.T.C. v. Transnet Wireless Corp., 506 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1252, fn. 4 (S.D.Fla.,2007), citing Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 328, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). However, there exists a well recognized exception to the general rule

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.,1 at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fif

am) (holding that such persons have rights that have "vested" and that "it would be manifestly unjust" to ply the new Act to them); United States Mitchell, 600 F.Supp. 164 .D.Ca1.1985) ("Congress apparently did not contemplate that individuals released pursuant to [the old Act] would be subject t

the evidence it pro- poses to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent" of the testimo- ny given under the grant of immunity. See Braswell v. United States, — US. —, 108 S.Ct. 2284, 2295, 101 LEd.2d 98 (1988); Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct at 1666. See also Murphy v. Waterfront C