Epstein Secrets

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud

a civil case from disclosing confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena, and the defendant produc

oitation and Obscenity Section, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, the New York [City] Police Department, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, the New Mexico At

s summary judgment order and proposed remedies in Jane Doe v. United States, No. 08-cv-80736 (S.D.FI.). Th

of Georgia (or FBI agents working therewith). and Exchange Commission; the Department of Homeland Security; the New York [City] Police Department; the Manhattan District Attorney's Office; the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County; the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office; the New Mexico At

s summary judgment order and proposed remedies in Jane Doe v. United States, No. 08-cv-80736 (S.D.FI.). To

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud

a civil case from disclosing confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena, and the defendant produc

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud

a civil case from disclosing confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena, and the defendant produc