Epstein Secrets

inal) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978)). Here, the government violated due process when it misrepresented and misled Chief Judge McMahon in an ex pane proceeding to circumvent the civil protective order, and it independently would violate due process for the government to be allowed

tly would violate due process for the government to be allowed to use that evidence at all, for any purpose. U.S. CONST. amend. V; United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

e this is fine for you to disclose this in formation to the government based on the validly issued grand jury subpoena"); cf. (id. at 4 (Chief Judge McMahon describing Chemical Bank as saying "the proper procedure [for the production of documents] is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the

and suppress evidence by invoking their supervisory authority. Consistent with that principle, and given that this power is "sparingly exercised," Iambus, 897 F.3d at 401, (emphasis in original), this Court should not elect to do so here where the defendant has not established a violation of her Four

inal) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978)). Here, the government violated due process when it misrepresented and misled Chief Judge McMahon in an ex pane proceeding to circumvent the civil protective order, and it independently would violate due process for the government to be allowed

tly would violate due process for the government to be allowed to use that evidence at all, for any purpose. U.S. CONST. amend. V; United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

epositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 ARGUMENT 11 A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Sho

arties before the bar .... [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

epositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boles Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 ARGUMENT 11 A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Sho

arties before the bar .... [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

epositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 ARGUMENT 11 A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Sho

arties before the bar .... [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i