Epstein Secrets

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

e, 456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293 United States v. Florida West Mt1 Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Ha. 2012) 23,24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (KIK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999) 275,281 United Stat

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293 United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United Sta

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293 United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United Sta

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di

States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 166 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise"), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 27, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 28, 77, 33 81 1 F.3d 87 (2d

456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 201 United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 19, 20 United States v. Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 183, 189 United State

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). The defendant cites no authority in which a court has dismiss

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 19

456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293 United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United Sta

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di