Epstein Secrets

Federal Rule of Criininai Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) do not appear to apply. See, e.g. Carlson v. United°States, $37 F.3d at 763 (7th CJ,T. 201(:,) ("As the Supreine Court put it, Rule 6(e) is 'but deciaratory' of the iong-standing 'principle' that ·'disclosuie' of grand jury materials is 'committed to the discretion o

Petition ofNat’I Sec. Archive, No. 08 CIV. 6599, 2008 WL 8985358 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2008) (release of grand jury records concerning the indictment of Julius ;and Ethel Rosenberg); 4 State y, Clemons was superseded by statute. See Kelly v. Sturgis, 453 So.2d 1179 (Fla[ 5th DCA 1984). Greenberg Traurig, PJA

The Supreme Court had a small basketball court on the fifth floor. The clerks called it “The Highest Court in the Land,” since it was directly above the Supreme Courtroom itself. Rumor had it that in previous years the clerks used to play basketball while the Justices were hearing arguments, and the sound of the bounci

rd.” When I was 13 or 14, I actually did something that may have gotten me on a list. It was during the height of the McCarthy period, shortly after Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been sentenced to death. A Rosenberg relative was accosting people getting off the train, asking them to sign a petition to s

basis of race or ethnicity and so structure its selection process as to admit an essentially predetermined proportion of members of certain groups. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bakke accepted our argument against the sort of racial quotas employed by the medical school at issue, but it approved affirmative action

view for The New York Times about a book which had concluded that Julius Rosenberg had indeed been a Soviet spy. This is how I began my review: WERE Julius and Ethel Rosenberg guilty of transmitting American atomic secrets to the Soviet Union in the 1940's, or were they scapegoats of the cold war whose e