Epstein Secrets

Th]e Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." (citing United States v. Nersesian, 824 F2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)); United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 154 EFTA00100121 1838255, at *1, 4-6 (W.D.N.Y

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

Th]e Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." (citing United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)); United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 154 EFTA00077786 1838255, at *1, 4-6 (W.D.N.

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

Th]e Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." (citing United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)); United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 154 EFTA00039601 1838255, at *1, 4-6 (W.D.N.

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

Th]e Second Circuit routinely upholds the 'on or about' language used to describe the window of when a violation occurred." (citing United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)); United States v. Vickers, 13 Cr. 128 (MA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255, at *1, 4-6 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) (denying

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