Epstein Secrets

ra on 4/28/2009. (cqs) (Entered: 04/29/2009) Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 1 Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 05/01/2009) ENDORSED ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint. Jeffrey Epstein response due 5/6/2009. Signed by

red: 11/10/2010) RESPONSE to Motion re 14 Renewed MOTION to Quash, 7 MOTION to Quash Service of Process and Supporting Memorandum of Law Plaintiff, MJ, Response to Epstein's Motion to Quash Service of Process and Motion for Hearing to Prove Fraud, to Prove Proper Service, to Obtain Sanctions for Ep

orowitz, Adam) (Entered: 12/21/2009) 12/29/2009 443 RESPONSE/REPLY to 442 Response to Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Incorporated Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum Regarding Jane Doe 4 by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachme

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. I. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

it a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (c

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

a, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible in a conspiracy case where they are used to (i) explain the

the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jut), Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp. 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (c

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (lcl at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure