Epstein Secrets

which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-201

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so thee is no good basis for sealing. (Counse

which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at •11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-201

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provided for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. H-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at •11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-201

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

in which the crime occurred," the CVRA clearly provid for "rights ... that apply before any prosecution is underway." (United States . BP Products North America, Inc., Criminal No. 11-07-434, 2008 WL 501321 at *11 (S.D.Tex. Feb.21, 2008) (emphasis in original), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean, No. 08-20

overnment offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government claims that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns