Epstein Secrets

ng principle that "[t]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large part to the separation of powers doctrine. Id.; U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3. Whether to investigate po

e complained mightily that Rosenbaum has already made unauthorized disclosures, Garfinkel and Katzman have not identified for this Court which of Rosenbaum's statements in the Request for Judicial Inquiry, or at the April 16 healing, they claim are privileged. Moreover, Katzman's assertion of privileg

and has led to litigation between the former law partners. The motions now before this Court arise, in large measure, from heated disputes between Rosenbaum on the one hand, and Garfinkel and Katz- man on the other. Immediately following the breakup of KGR, Rosenbaum's law firm, RMJS, en- tered appeara

nalysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1996) (Judicial deference [94] to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of

y the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within pleading to decide application of work product privilege). The Court will therefore evaluate each claim of

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

y the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within 4 EFTA_R1_01293439 EFTA02335901 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 P

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

y the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within 4 EFTA00086448 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 5 of 51 plead

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wane, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

y the United States Attorney's Office in anticipation of possible Epstein prosecution); see Stern v. O-Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 675 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.) (relying on allegations within 4 EFTA01657755 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 5 of 51 plead