Epstein Secrets

n he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.' Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions... is to protect innocent men... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circu

ted States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 May 22, 2017 Re: Subpoena to Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.) Dear Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner: We write in response to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's subpoena dated May 10, 2017, requesting that our client, Lieutenant General Mi

43 F.3d 72, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2003). These courts have drawn a distinction between the legally established definition of "obscenity," as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Miller and the terms "pornography" and "pornographic materials." These courts have also recognized that prohibitions against convicted sexual of

particular offender's deviant behavior pattern. We cannot apply the doctrine of last antecedent in a manner that leads to such a result. See, e.g., Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 887 So. 2d 1023, 1033 n.9 (Fla. 2004) ("[A] statutory provision should not be construed in such a way that it renders the st

he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.1 Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions ... is to protect innocent men . .. who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous

ligence United States Senate Washington, E. 20510 Re: $ubpoena to lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn (Reta Dear Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner: We write in response to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's subpoena dated May 10, 2017, requesting that our client, Lieutenant General