Epstein Secrets

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

ivacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to vic

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. (

ivacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to vic

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. (

ivacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to vic

arc inadmissible on hearsay or other grounds. See. e.g., United States v. Boyle, No. 08 CR 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (McMahon, J.) (quashing subpoena for investigative file as overbroad because although part of the investigative file "may be relevant to the case at bar," t

request at issue here. (See Defs.' PRI Opp'n, at 27 (citing United States v. Yudung Zhu, No. 13 CR. 761, 2014 WL 5366107 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (Marrero, J.); United States v. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (I lolwell, J.); and United Stales v. McClure, No. CRIM.A. 10-028, 2010 WL 35

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

ivacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to vic

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. (

ivacy Congress has emphasized should be protected. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) (delineating privacy protections for child victims and witnesses). Judge Marrero's decision in Kidd, which denied a motion to dismiss a sex trafficking charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 where the indictment referred to vic