Epstein Secrets

ithout success, including allowing the Petitioners, that is Jane Does 1 and 2, and their counsel, the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys were allowed to do. F Despite the Petitioners' earlier statement to the Court that no additional facts were needed, hours were spent tryin

NERS' "FACTS" WOULD HAVE VIOLATED FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include allege that Epstein and others have committed crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the grand jury.

e opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys were allowed to do. F Despite

he crimes which would be charged, and the number of persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule 6(e). In re Grand Any Investigation , 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of these conflicting directives, the more conservative course is to treat all information related to grand jury pro

R. CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include in their Statement of Undisputed Facts allege that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and others have committed crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the

ND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include in their Statement of Undisputed Facts allege that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and others have committed crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the grand jury

n their Statement of Undisputed Facts allege that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and others have committed cr

he crimes which would be charged, and the number of persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule 6(e). In re Grand Any Investigation , 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of these conflicting directives, the more conservative course is to treat all information related to grand jury pro

ithout success, including allowing the Petitioners, that is Jane Does 1 and 2, and their counsel, the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys were allowed to do. F Despite the Petitioners' earlier statement to the Court that no additional facts were needed, hours were spent tryin

NERS' "FACTS" WOULD HAVE VIOLATED FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES. Several of the "facts" that Petitioners include allege that Epstein and others have committed crimes for which they were never charged or convicted. Others refer to matters that were occurring before the grand jury.

e opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys were allowed to do. F Despite

he crimes which would be charged, and the number of persons who would be charged run afoul of the secrecy requirements codified in Rule 6(e). In re Grand Any Investigation , 610 F.2d at 217, 218. In light of these conflicting directives, the more conservative course is to treat all information related to grand jury pro