Epstein Secrets

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), lijt has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

nding is met only by sworn evidence, in the form of affidavit or testimony, from the defendant or someone with personal knowledge." United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Ulbricht,No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039, at *6 (S.D.N.Y

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

Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) 267 United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 118 United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) 125 United States v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

nding is met only by sworn evidence, in the form of affidavit or testimony, from the defendant or someone with personal knowledge." United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039, at *6 (S.D.N.

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

Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) 267 United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 118 United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) 125 United States v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

nding is met only by sworn evidence, in the form of affidavit or testimony, from the defendant or someone with personal knowledge." United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039, at *6 (S.D.N.

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

5 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 176 United States v. Monserrate, 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) 175 United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 83 United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) 88 United States v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 1230 (2d Cir. 19

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

Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) 267 United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 118 United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) 125 United States v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

nding is met only by sworn evidence, in the form of affidavit or testimony, from the defendant or someone with personal knowledge." United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria, 892 F. Supp. 104, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039, at *6 (S.D.N.