Epstein Secrets

happened. 3 as importantly, both aides are adequately prepared 5 when the trustee took over the tiles, there 6 so that, as I mentioned in this Pollard case, no 4 wan an understanding by Hr. Edwards and his firm 7 ono is unduly surprised by something that cones 7 that [hove would to about 5,000

priately be turned over because * retains jurisdiction co award ➢anction➢ in favor of Is obviously these were e-mails that related to a wide 10 Miner, Brad Eadardo or hl➢ client .• II variety of cases. It wan the entire contents of It So it was obvious that whet wes to happen at Ix the e-mail

happened. 3 as importantly, both aides are adequately prepared 5 when the trustee took over the tiles, there 6 so that, as I mentioned in this Pollard case, no 4 wan an understanding by Hr. Edwards and his firm 7 ono is unduly surprised by something that cones 7 that [hove would to about 5,000

priately be turned over because * retains jurisdiction co award ➢anction➢ in favor of Is obviously these were e-mails that related to a wide 10 Miner, Brad Eadardo or hl➢ client .• II variety of cases. It wan the entire contents of It So it was obvious that whet wes to happen at Ix the e-mail

3, 925 (N.D. 111.1964) (motion to quash grand jury subpoe. nas). EFTA00191855 808 770 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES "reasonable basis" standard. Pollard, 283 FSupp. at 258; Reporters Committee, 693 F2d at 1064. See also Bran:burg v. Hayes; 408 U.S. 665, 699-01, 707-08, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 2665-66, 2669

St. Lads 8. W. Ry., 282 U.S. DI 51 S. . 8. 75 L.Ed. 135 (1930), Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co.. 220 U.B. 599, 9 .Ct. 600, 55 L.Ed. 575 (1911); Miner Eimkh. 236 F.Supp. 927 (E.D. Pa. Appellants contend that having found the federal constitutional question to be at least not frivolous, the dist