Epstein Secrets

ces the Instant Investigation in 2018 65 5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon 68 a. March 26, 2019 Hearing 68 b. April 9, 2019 Hearing 70 EFTA00077607 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. Magistrate Judge

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

ces the Instant Investigation in 2018 65 5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon 68 a. March 26, 2019 Hearing 68 b. April 9, 2019 Hearing 70 EFTA00039422 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. Magistrate Judge

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

eedin s before 5. The USAO-SDNY's Sub.. nas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66 a. M 68 b. April ', 70 EFTA00095068 c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71 7. &OAS% 74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Sup

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

eir' ginndell in the altemalEMENty, both Challudge firTihron and rt ige that Martindell applied allialliEleappan under that framewial As chAllige McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government estab

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame