Epstein Secrets

e Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

e Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, indult all employees of and

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

e Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

ATING, INC. 5 Nor did the district court err in declining to order the U.S. Attorneys' Office to commence criminal forfeiture proceedings against the Internal Revenue Service and other non-parties alleged to possess assets implicated in DiFrancesco's criminal activities. Contrary to Stake Center's argument, forfeiture i

eged information. Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Wor

e Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci