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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

vided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was prov

g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory 'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory 'shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

vided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was prov

e.g., Lopez' Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. I. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv