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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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

es investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(bX2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456, *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the governme

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government