Epstein Secrets

. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 15 United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) 18 United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) 15 United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300 (D. Utah Aug. 27

WL 1456536 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) 15 United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) 15 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) 7 United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323 (E.

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00066968 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00154338 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00083764 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00086927 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757, at *9 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960, 961 (W.D. Tenn. 2004); United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000); United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028, 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1985).3 For very good

ial factual differences," the Court described those cases, including United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as "not on point and not persuasive," and d

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00093438 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

o extradition while intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00099922 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff; 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence

. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 15 United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) 18 United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) 15 United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 12131300 (D. Utah Aug. 27

WL 1456536 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) 15 United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) 15 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) 7 United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323 (E.

radition, such a waiver may not become valid until an extradition request is pending in Canada and may be subject to withdrawal."); United States v. Stroh, No. 396-CR-139 (AHN), 2000 WL 1832956, at *5 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000) ("[I]t appears that there is a substantial legal question as to whether any c

intending to resist any subsequent extradition that might result. The Court is unpersuaded. 13 EFTA00013319 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). The Court's concerns regarding the absence