Epstein Secrets

oceed. The Court should uphold BOP's logical and plausible reliance on Exemption 7(A). BOP's reliance on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect images of Epstein's body and the names of his associates was also proper. Epstein's surviving family member retains a privacy interest in the details of Epstein's su

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t

oceed. The Court should uphold BOP's logical and plausible reliance on Exemption 7(A). BOP's reliance on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect images of Epstein's body and the names of his associates was also proper. Epstein's surviving family member retains a privacy interest in the details of Epstein's su

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t

oceed. The Court should uphold BOP's logical and plausible reliance on Exemption 7(A). BOP's reliance on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect images of Epstein's body and the names of his associates was also proper. Epstein's surviving family member retains a privacy interest in the details of Epstein's su

ecords withheld by BOP under Exemption 7 were compiled for law enforcement purposes, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Exemption 7(A) test. See Amnesty Intl USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); BOP MOL at 8-10. The Times criticizes the Government for arguing that BOP documents—or at least t