Epstein Secrets

inous discovery in combination with some guidanceabout what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

members of fire or police 196 EFTA00100163 departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6). Finally, because jury service for certain grou

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

members of fire or police 196 EFTA00077828 departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6). Finally, because jury service for certain gro

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

members of fire or police 196 EFTA00039643 departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6). Finally, because jury service for certain gro

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

f the United States, members of fire or police departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6). Finally, because jury service for certain gro

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

members of fire or police 196 EFTA00103221 departments, and public officers in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the State or Federal Government who are actively engaged in the performance of official duties. Id. at Art. V; 28 U.S.C. § 1863(b)(6). Finally, because jury service for certain gro