Epstein Secrets

h ed. 2015). The rule that federal courts do not issue advisory opinions can be traced back to the Founding era. In 1793, after Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson sent the Supreme Court questions about the rights and obligations of the United States to remain neutral toward the warring nations of Europe, the

ng era. In 1793, after Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson sent the Supreme Court questions about the right

stigative and prosecutorial arm of the executive branch of government." (quotation marks omitted)). Further, as we explained in ?a United States v. Eisenberg, "[u]ntil an indictment is returned and a case presented to the United States District Court, the responsibility for the functioning of the grand

that the application is timely." United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983). "T

itical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion of] the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted." United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). See, e.g., Application of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 611 (2d Cir. 1988)("Not the least important cons

that the application is timely." United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (I 1 th Cir. 1983).

ritical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion ofj the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted."United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). So important are the private interests at stake in grand jury secrecy that private parties may bring civil acti

that the application is timely." United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983). "T

itical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion ofj the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted." United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). So important are the private interests at stake in grand jury secrecy that private parties may bring civil acti

egin drafting reply pleadings. See United States! Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (nth Cir. 1983) (list

the investigation if the facts arc known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

egin drafting reply pleadings. See United States' Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (1Ith Cir. 1983) (lis

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

egin drafting reply pleadings. See United States' Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983) (lis

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained in