Epstein Secrets

orgetting who told him about some bozo's wife. Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000. By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag

tarr's hiring. Epstein's spokesman, Howard Rubenstein. had no comment. Last year. Starr, who was president of Pepperdine University. argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that an Alaska school had the right to suspend a student for unfurling a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Starr is also repping BlaCkwater, the private

yl (Eco Crime) Santamaria, Michelle (HOM) Satcher, Linda (Appeals) Satcher, Lisa (Fel U) Sauvola, Nicole (Belie Glade) Scharaga, Joan (CAC) Schiller, Gregory (Juv Intake) Seder, Sandra Mall Rm) Selvig, Kenneth (INTAKE) Shepherd, Caroline (CC) Shepherd, Robed Juv Intake) Shepherd, Tonya (I

. 9 EFTA00805420 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 15 of 21 The First Amendment presumption of access is even stronger. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said time and again, the First Amendment requires open courts and court records to ensure the "appearance of fairness [that is] so essential to

ess-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) 7 Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 792I(ICMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) 7, 12 Sec. and Exch. Conun'n v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 22

nvestigation doesn't rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge in California. We just contend that even when you look backwards to whether this constitutes an obstru

nswer is yes? MR. BOIES: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. : Your Honor, my understanding, including from representatives of the Boies, Schiller law firm, is that victims have expressed the views that we conveyed to the Court. I was not aware of any victims or victims' counsel who wished t

nvestigation doesn't rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge in California. We just contend that even when you look backwards to whether this constitutes an obstru

nswer is yes? MR. BOIES: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. : Your Honor, my understanding, including from representatives of the Boies, Schiller law firm, is that victims have expressed the views that we conveyed to the Court. I was not aware of any victims or victims' counsel who wished t

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

r 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to at I that it intended to make document requests. Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). In or about February 2019, approximately t

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

bpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials SOW- after opening t mment identified possible victims and their counsel trroiigh ich ina Boies Schiller. (Def. Mem. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). SDNY first cont oies Schiller about its investigation on or about December 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in oar Dec

the counts would waste judicial resources by requiring a second trial at 53 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

t complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders." Id. Here, by contrast, ga on in late 0111 Schiller shortly the na in Februan Miran order, Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers n

d. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures ... such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from