Epstein Secrets

o the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about that conflict after the Epstein matter was referred to another district (e.g., the Middle District of Florida). See Victims' First RFP's at ¶ 18; Victims' Second FRP's at ¶ 1. The victims know that the USAO-SDFL was in fact conflicted out of som

n trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or

was claiming that there is no a single document — no email, no investigative report, no grand jury information, no record of any type — existing in the Middle District of Florida after the Southern District of Florida was recused from handling certain aspects of this case. DE 226 at 10-11. In response, the Governme

in trust by the Government because of "common-law trust principles." Id. at 2325. In rejecting the tribe's claim, the Supreme Court held that "the Tribe must point to a right conferred by statute . . . in order to obtain otherwise privilege information from the Government against its wishes." Id. (e

ive entity, and any grand jury investigating these (or releated) allegations, including any grand jury meeting in the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of Florida, the District of EFTA00179741 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 44 of 64 New Jersey, and/o

n trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or