◆ SpookStack

sriddenenen ETS est matter ee ne, ag 3 Ay =e SH wstes * addiWon, Neiner has Filed a mdWon for prorective ‘orders od. sate wotion saosin instruccions to the grand sary. The: ' nesses" attorneys an nd. the attornay fer the gover cont, pena: ait Mawatey beenrt tel 7 Se ee ete ys awed. 7 oral Segurent was held, before. this Court, On: Wins, 19%. oe % This nendrandum will address ‘only the mations “Ege aaa, tT = od 7 ‘of electronic or ‘other. surveillance. a be considered in a: Subsequent. opinion. a weg sebaoe So car “In order to isolate=the | issues raised by rhe motion: Me ‘ioe 8 nahietwmmceet Peemariontone ean eed," 7 in question, ‘their statutory EPaxsvork mst first. be set re ~ ‘forth, mt: u S.C. § 1826 (a3 Yutborizes & court te confine a Re witness who refuses ei thout just seatise” to tastify before or wer 8 —e! provide other | information or materials t@ 2 grand ry when * “urdered by the court ts ds SS. red the questions posed to the "witness or the reausbeg | for other information or marerials . “have been based. on information derived from, illegal electron-) c.surveillance, then Gust cause” not to enswex oc respond by rend “exists. Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. aL (3972); To i _ HA Nanette pratientien a Seah hand oS Ste! aah el Ne mary "provides in a pertinent part: _ "fay In ony. proceeding in or before any __ grand jury... . — (1) upon a claim by 2 party agerteved. at = thae evidence is inadmissible because it is the - ¥ — primary product of an unlawful act or because | a m3, Lt was obtained by the exploitation of an ume 4. "° Jawful act, the opponent of the claim shalt . _ : a oc Fira or ony, the occurrence of the SRiegeS ao eoctten 3506¢6) defines | on Monlaw ful. zee as one involving _¢ ob aees po ‘Mega wivetapping « or electronic sueve dT ance “In the. | nt Area ame So et ot petal A tty terete sag Ws th lanl tna So tra tort enteay PNg heme Te a A et Sy er a a ge