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,

or sexual massages .. . you know?" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not "fundamental." Cl Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about "this arrangement" was not fundamentally ambiguous). Nor is there any basis to dismiss

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,

ual massages . . . [i]f you know?" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not "fundamental." Cl Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about "this arrangement" was not fundamentally ambiguous). Nor is there any basis to dismiss

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,

ual massages . . . [i]f you know?" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not "fundamental." Cl Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about "this arrangement" was not fundamentally ambiguous). Nor is there any basis to dismiss

edure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), '[i]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,

nt. 124 EFTA00095216 you know?" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not "fundamental." Cl Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about "this arrangement" was not fundamentally ambiguous). Nor is there any basis to dismiss