Epstein Secrets

Dirk ga % WVAILNYLLtOil 4ournal An Athol Publication THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2020 The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the ap- parent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigatio

ony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direc- tion of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of in- formation obtained independentl

7:02 PM, Not a problem— the text is copied below. Sent from my iPhone wrote: The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the apparent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigation

timony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direction of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW)(S.D.N.Y. Oct 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of information obtained independently of

T To: (USANYS)" Not a problem— the text is copied below. Sent from my iPhone The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the apparent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigation

timony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direction of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW)(S.D.N.Y. Oct 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of information obtained independently of

To: (LISANYS)" Not a problem— the text is copied below. Sent from my iPhonc The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the apparent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigation

timony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direction of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of information obtained independently o

From: To: Subject: Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 22:56:3U +0000 The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the apparent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigation

timony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direction of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW)(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of information obtained independently of

t „nit. 4., 8 6 ). % °3 /4 ES' An ALM Publication THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2020 The Prince and the Proffer In recent months, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has issued forceful public statements regarding the ap- parent failure of Britain's Prince Andrew to cooperate in an ongoing investigatio

ony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direc- tion of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of in- formation obtained independentl

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreet.corn, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00099949 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith y. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. 71eStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00077614 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. 71eStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00039429 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380