Epstein Secrets

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this cate. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tF.e ple

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so thee is no good basis for sealing. (Counse

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tie ple

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tl-e pl

Government offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government clams that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about the plea

overnment offers two explanations for sealing its pleadings. First, the Government claims that the pleading would reveal correspondence with minors. Gov't Motion at 1. But the Government has redacted the names of the minors involved (including Petitioner's name), so there is no good basis for sealing. (Couns