Epstein Secrets

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

ial settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing_approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00040664 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a No. EFTA00106039 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 21 meeting to provide the Government i

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00066510 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the NPA, it would undoubtedly

as long as the USAO determines EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida continues presently and through late 2010. 6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to declare that the agree

1321(2f M24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 12 the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth

as long as the USAO determines EPSTEIN has complied with those terms and conditions. The threat of criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN by USAO in the Southern District of Florida continues presently and through late 2010. 6. Pursuant to the terms of the NPA, the USAO possesses the right to declare that the agree

in venture. First ventur- er moved to dismiss or for summary judg- ment, and second venturer cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court, Conboy, J., held that: (1) agreement under which first joint venturer agreed to return capital contribution to second joint venturer upon return of all i

lan... 5/14/2007 EFTA00187439 $DNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report Page 1 of 5 CLOSED U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05332-SITS Citibank, N.A.I Epstein, et al Assigned to: Judge Sidney H. Stein Demand:

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00087251 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

al settlement agreement. Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a EFTA00087230 meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three atto