Epstein Secrets

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) Before PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) Before PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and

, but we decline to draw an arbitrary line. The victims' argument has an ipse dixit quality—that is, because our Court has never before applied the Penman doctrine outside of the grand jury context, we should not do so now. But we must ask instead whether applying the doctrine here makes sense. 11 E

DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) Before PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and