Epstein Secrets

zier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United Slates, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury ro

he Court's earlier finding. The Government also candidly admits that since then "the delay from October 28, 2010 through early March 2011 was due to the United States' efforts to reach [an] amicable resolution of the case . . . .. Gov't Resp. at 46 n.22. 9 The CVRA does not appear to impose specific timelines for v

ring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blal

accessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted); see Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.I992) (applying Whitmore). Obviously th

lies. In any event, it is obvious that grand jury secrecy only extends to matters that occurred in secret before the grand jury. See, e.g., Blalock. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury roo

on FLSD Docket 05:02/2011 Page 6 of 8 other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore I Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted) (addressing an individual's "next friend" status in the context of an appeal); see Loncharl

uld a federal court be authorized to dismiss federal parallel' claims that are initiated in state court. Colorado River Water Conservation District I. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). However, for the Colorado River doctrine to even apply, there must be clear Congressional direction that would preclude a fed

ll inquiry, such as constitutional standing, that "serve to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process." Whitmore, 495 U.S., at 155, 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135. (Emphasis added) Defendant's argument that the Court should abstain from deciding the

friend," it "does not make it any less a perversion of justice - indeed, it is one of the most nauseating instances of corrupt government favoritism the United States has ever seen." The Post concludes the US "is supposed to be a place in which laws apply equally to all. And while it never has - and never will - l

virus pandemic, as more employees switched to working from home, and medical facilities were cash-strapped and stretched thin because of COVID-19." Whitmore "said that, between March and April, IBM saw a 6,000% increase in spam attacks on information technology systems, leveraging COVID-19, EFTA00150713