Epstein Secrets

identiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated to honor", Doc 29, pg 1, and that "the parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the Agreement s

ntiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con

identiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated to honor", Doc 29, pg 1, and that "the parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the Agreement s

tiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con

identiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated to honor", Doc 29, pg 1, and that "the parties who negotiated the Agreement, the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the Agreement s

tiality agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States 9:08cv80736-KAM that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in par 6 of document 14, your own declaration, you stated that the NPA con