Epstein Secrets

48 Re: FOIA Case Number 76098 - Jeffrey E. Epstein Dear FOIA Appeals Officer: This is a timely appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6), concerning the United States National Security Agency's (the "Agency") denial of a request for records within its control in Case Number 76098. I am writing this letter on beha

oreign Surveillance Program and the Metadata Program. Inasmuch as Epstein is a United States Citizen who resides in the U. S. Virgin Islands, he is a United States Person, and Section 702 of FISA, would prohibit the Agency from conducting targeted surveillance of Epstein either in the United States or indeed a

10, 21aM.1987). Larson v. Dept. of State, 565 F.3d 857, 862 Cir. 2009) (citing Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374-75 M . Cir. 2007). 1° See, e.g., Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1126 I n . Cir. 2007) (remanding for agency to "substantiate its Glomar response"); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Se

d his reversal on DOMAA The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by China to influence the domestic policies of the United States, before and during the Clinton administration, and involved the fundraising practices of the administration itself-MTh:41J Despite the evidence

million dollars of M' ewl monies in numerous bulk accounts in numerous locations, including Queensland • Drug Trafficking • Money Laundering o Morley transfers to corporation and bast sure of name given involving money transfers. confirmation needed) o Tax file number being misused in Australia

icitly admitted that BOP operations failed when it brought criminal charges against the two BOP officers on duty the night of Epstein's suicide. See United States v. Noel, No. 19-cr-830 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). A recent report by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General has revealed further problems at

. 352, 372 (1976)). The "requirement that disclosure be `clearly unwarranted' instructs [courts] to tilt the balance . . . in favor of disclosure." Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted). "[U]nder Exemption 6, the presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong

icitly admitted that BOP operations failed when it brought criminal charges against the two BOP officers on duty the night of Epstein's suicide. See United States v. Noel, No. 19-cr-830 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). A recent report by the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General has revealed further problems at

. 352, 372 (1976)). The "requirement that disclosure be `clearly unwarranted' instructs [courts] to tilt the balance . . . in favor of disclosure." Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted). "[U]nder Exemption 6, the presumption in favor of disclosure is as strong