Epstein Secrets

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

no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they am multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circu

, 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

ndictment 157 A. Relevant Facts 158 B. Applicable Law 159 C. Discussion 161 IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature 169 A. Relevant Facts 169 B. Applicable Law 170 C. Discussion 172 X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denie

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

no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circ

, 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

ndictment 157 A. Relevant Facts 158 B. Applicable Law 159 C. Discussion 161 IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature 169 A. Relevant Facts 169 B. Applicable Law 170 C. Discussion 172 X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denie

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

no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circ

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

ndictment 157 A. Relevant Facts 157 B. Applicable Law 159 C. Discussion 160 IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature 169 A. Relevant Facts 169 B. Applicable Law 169 C. Discussion 171 X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denie

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

the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. 168 EFTA00095260 IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circ

, 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

ictment 157 A. Relevant Facts 158 B. Applicable Law 159 C. Discussion 161 IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature 169 A. Relevant Facts 169 B. Applicable Law 170 C. Discussion 172 X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Den

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

no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circ