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,

r. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) 126 United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 165, 171 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) 255 United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 241, 243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr.

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

ransporting or traveling with minors, she had no knowledge or intent that they engage in sexual conduct with Epstein. 167 EFTA00100134 States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein de

, 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

Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) 126 United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 165, 171 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) 255 United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 241, 243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr.

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

ransporting or traveling with minors, she had no knowledge or intent that they engage in sexual conduct with Epstein. 167 EFTA00077799 States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein de

, 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

Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) 126 United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 165, 171 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) 255 United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 241, 243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr.

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

ransporting or traveling with minors, she had no knowledge or intent that they engage in sexual conduct with Epstein. 167 EFTA00039614 States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein de

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

WL 1994014 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2005) 183 United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 112, 115 xx EFTA00095087 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 9

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

s enough that the characteristics relied upon are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein de

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

ransporting or traveling with minors, she had no knowledge or intent that they engage in sexual conduct with Epstein. 167 EFTA00103192 States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein de