Epstein Secrets

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

also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE

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

also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE

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

also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in malcinislecisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE

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

07 letter from Gerald Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Lefeourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Marie Vi Ilafarla with handwritten attorney (Villafarla) notes; Proper Victim's

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

also potentially a motive to violate the victims' rights as explained previously. The Government's privilege log has numerous entries showing that Menchal was substantially and personally involved in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution. See, e.g., page 19 of the first privilege log (DE