Epstein Secrets

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d

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

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d

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

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d

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

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d

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