Epstein Secrets

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cty. ofAlbemarle, Va., 524 F.3d 485,492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “showing

of his co-conspirators, and the identities of the victims have already been exposed, the need for grand jury secrecy is no more. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand jury’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). WHEREFO

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cnty. of Albemarle, VA, 524 F.3d 485, 492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “show[

f time that has passed, and the widely reported nature ofthis miscarriage ofjustice, there is no additional need for maintaining secrecy. See U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150,.234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand juty’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). 112. Co

2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and those wishing to receive speech.”); see also Stephens v. Cty. ofAlbemarle, Va., 524 F.3d 485,492 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing that a plaintiff has “standing to assert a right to receive speech” by “showing

of his co-conspirators, and the identities of the victims have already been exposed, the need for grand jury secrecy is no more. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand jury’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). WHEREFO