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,

152 VIII. There Is No Basis to Strike Any Portion of the Indictment 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 '\lultiplicitous Is Premature 169 A. Relevant Facts 169 B. Applicable Law 170 C. Discussion 172 X. Th

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

in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is 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 m

, 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

ations set forth in Section 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre- Trial Delay Should Be Denied The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed

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

in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is 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

, 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

ations set forth in Section 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre- Trial Delay Should Be Denied The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed

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

in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is 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

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

limitations set forth in § 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre- Trial Delay Should Be Denied The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed

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

ree and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is no basis to strike 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

, 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

ations set forth in Section 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre- Trial Delay Should Be Denied The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed

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

in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is 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