Epstein Secrets

n agreement. The United States advised the Court that the Agreement had a confidentiality provision, which the United States was obligated to honor. The United States requested that, if the Agreement was to be produced to petitioners, it should be done EFTA00204641 pursuant to a protective order, to ensure that

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

n agreement. The United States advised the Court that the Agreement had a confidentiality provision, which the United States was obligated to honor. The United States requested that, if the Agreement was to be produced to petitioners, that it should done pursuant to a protective order, to ensure that further disse

rmation received concerning the Agreement. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consu

n agreement. The United States advised the Court that the Agreement had a confidentiality provision, which the United States was obligated to honor. The United States requested that, if the Agreement was to be produced to petitioners, it should be done EFTA00215925 pursuant to a protective order, to ensure that

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

lated civil suits), the burden should fall on those who would keep the document sealed to show cause for doing so. No good cause has yet been shown. Cl United States v. Ochoa-Masque, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) (to justify sealing of court records "a court must articulate the overriding interest along with fin

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

have been tried and convicted and are serving life sentences in a super-maximum se- curity prison in Colorado. The decision to move Ghailani to the United States lays down an im- portant marker for the Obama administration. which wants to shut the military prison but has faced congressional resis- tance t

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

thers. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha