Epstein Secrets

e, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martin

ttributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State `has exercised coercive power or has provi

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

ttributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State `has exercised coercive power or has provi

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

ttributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State `has exercised coercive power or has provi

uppression Motion Should Be Denied Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous fa

ttributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State `has exercised coercive power or has provi

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, bu

ttributable to the government "only when it can be said that the State is responsible for the specific conduct of which the [defendant] complains." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (emphasis in original). "Such responsibility is normally found when the State 'has exercised coercive power or has provi