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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law- enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations . . . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no lo

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remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.)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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe