Epstein Secrets

. 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

n Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

l protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47;= v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Marvell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

that it should substitute itself for the district court on an expedited basis to exercise the discretion reposed in the district judge, contrary to the Supreme Court's teaching in Nixon. Reposing this discretion in the district court is founded on two principles. One is that the sealed materials were filed in tha

, the panel has the authority to direct the district court to act promptly—as it did in Lugoschi —on the unseal motions. `Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 EFTA00791873 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page6 of 27 Factual Background Two related appeal

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

eral Judge Finds • Extreme Heat Shows the Need for Another Kind of Climate Investment • Biden Declares War on the Cult of Efficiency • Biden Admin Urges Supreme Court To Reinstate Major Gas Pipeline In West Virginia • Lawyers Say Helping Asylum Seekers in Border Custody Is Nearly Impossible • Oklahoma Governor's

may have known some Oneida Nation members, was gang-raped and killed. The article stated that FBI agents reportedly made visits to residents of the Onondaga reservation, a bigger Native American territory 40 miles from the Oneida Nation Territory, as recently as last week in their latest efforts to pers

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against