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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

ed its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

ed its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

ed its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned

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

its deliberations . . . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co.. Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[Wjhere, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

ed its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers. Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned

arded on January 10, 2008. Villafafia Decl., 1 3. On May 28, 2008, Its status as a victim was confirmed when she was interviewed by federal agents. W., The FBI Victim Witness specialist sent her a letter on May 30, 2008. W., When the agreement was signed in September 2007, S was openly hostile to

cluded its deliberations . . . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer outweighs other concerns."); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co., Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ("[W]here, as here, the grand jury has completed its work and all that is sought are those documents turned