Epstein Secrets

he "tinned Kingdom-United Stater Agreement Concerning Obtaining Evidence From Cayman Islands With Regard to Narcotics Activities." The gravamen of Harvey's argu- ment is that the United States may obtain evi. had granted Harvey both transactional im- munity and use immunity for any informa- tion he had

89) 7201,' and one count of filing a false income tax return in April of 1981, a viola- tion of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).1 The govern- ment alleges that Harvey kept millions of dollars derived from his lucrative drug dealings in a bank account in the Cayman Islands. In his individual income tax re- turn f

ose of delay; the defendant bore the burden of showing he would not flee and was not a danger to any person or the community. See also former Fed.R.App.P. 9(c). The Act changed the criteria for release on bail pending appeal and placed the burden on the convicted defendant to prove that he meets

rney, and Assistant U.S. Attorney." I said, "I would stake my life on their honor and veracity." Mr. Sands asked Mr. Kimbrough: Q. In return for Harvey's furnishing information, what was he to receive? A. I was to dismiss the Indictment against him. Q. Do you know whether or not any— A. And I would

ld not satisfy heavy burden of proving defendant under- stood government reserved right to seek property forfeiture): United States v. (Mi• chat!) Harvey, 791 F.2d at 301 (imprecision in terms of written agreement construed against the government). 11 In this case, Harvey was not granted formal st

d to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en bane. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. R. 41. C.A.D.C..2006. Miranda I. Gonzales 173 Fed.Appx. 840, 2006 WL 592928 (C.A.D.C.) END OF DOCUMENT C 2007 Thomson/West.

and the court found that to allow the privilege to protect against disclosure of that information" would have been unfair to the opposing party. 3 Weinstein, supra § 503.41[1]See also Sedco, 683 F.2d at 1206 (noting that courts have found waiver by implication when a client (i) testifies concerning po

Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998); see United States Crispo, 306 F.3d 71, 86 (2d Cir. 002) (applying this rule to a criminal appeal); Fed. R.App. P. 28(b). VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECT [44] Fell contends that even if none of the alleged errors warrants reversal, the cu- mulative effect of the gov