Epstein Secrets

Tremaine LIP, of counsel) having moved for an Order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued to McGraw-Hill by Ha Gallo Winery ("Gallo") on October 25, 2004 in stinn ittp://medialaw.bna.conthnedw/disnlav/hateh mint disnlav arin7crarrhid=11711717 EFTA00207298 Meala Law Keporter

ashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-1CAM, or in the alternative for a Protective Order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. Proc. 26(cX

Tremaine LIP, of counsel) having moved for an Order quashing a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued to McGraw-Hill by Ha Gallo Winery ("Gallo") on October 25, 2004 in stinn ittp://medialaw.bna.conthnedw/disnlav/hateh mint disnlav arin7crarrhid=11711717 EFTA00612031 Meala Law Keporter

ashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-1CAM, or in the alternative for a Protective Order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. Proc. 26(cX

1 Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Ha. 2012) 23,24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (KIK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999) 275,281 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v.

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 19, 20 United States v. Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 183, 189 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 48 United States v

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

gh the district court found that the defendant's immunized testi- mony had helped lead to the indictment on the gun charge. See also United States Gallo, 859 F.24 1078, 1088 (24 Cir.19 (Van Crasfeiland, J., concurring) ("Licens- ing and taxing statutes aside, the only haz- ards of incrimination that

orrn, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "358 El Brillo Way"). 5. DefendRJEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York,

Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C