Epstein Secrets

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00100062 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidenceobtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fift

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00077727 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00039542 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Birrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

the criminal protective order. (Dkt. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. 95 EFTA00095187 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif

uthful answer might reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying suit." United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1994)); see United States v. Bitrell, 470 F.2d 113, 115 n.1 (2d Cir. 1972) (explaining, in the context of a motion to pro

United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 135-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing the "natural tendency test" from a but-for test); Kross, 14 F.3d at 754 (rejecting, in a civil forfeiture case, the argument that the defendant's true testimony would not itself have justified a forfeitur

tive order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71). 95 EFTA00103120 3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit The defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena on Fif