Epstein Secrets

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

7, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very

By: /s/ Deputy Clerk Copies to: Hon. Geoffrey W. Barnard Gregory H. Hodges, Esq. Maria Tankenson

ly prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). The defendants raise several arguments

justify federal interven- tion"); see also Howard W. Brill, Equity and the Criminal Law, 2000 Ark. L.

, 436 U.S. 478, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, fi7 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). Oth- er executive officials are entitled to quali- fied immunity, see, e.g.. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49, 94 S.Ct. 1688, 1691- 92, 40 LEd.2d 90 (1974) (state executive officials), as are prosecutorial activities that ar

otion. See Beaulieu I Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. 3:07cv30/RV/BMT, 2007 WI, 2020161, * 2

, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) ( Rule 12(b)(6) does not I countenance ... dismissals b sed on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations"); Scheuer . Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (a we -pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears "that a recovery is very r