5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
6 / 5
Mentions
unications from disclosure to third parties outside the negotiation process. 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). EFTA00209671 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 16 of 75 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS In Septembe
tomary practices of the defense and prosecution function, entitled to assume would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties. See United States v. Deloitte UP, 610 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C.Cir. 2010)(court "examine[s] whether the disclosing party had a reasonable basis for believing that the reci
3, 45 Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Transportation, 452 Fed. Appx. 934 (11th Cir. 2012) 33 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) 31 Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carneg
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
ernors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 601 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 5, 6 Campbell v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 682 F.2d 256 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 9 Church of Scientology v. U.S Dep't of the Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979) 9 Cook v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 758 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2014) 17 Ctr. for Inve
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
ernors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 601 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) 5, 6 Campbell v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 682 F.2d 256 (D.C. Cir. 1982) 9 Church of Scientology v. U.S Dep't of the Army, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1979) 9 Cook v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 758 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2014) 17 Ctr. for Inve
to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r
tely appealable final order because the third party presumably lacks a sufficient stake in the proceeding to risk contempt by refusing compliance." Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n.11 (1992). The danger to the privilege holder — that privileged or confidential documents will be disclosed and
to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r
tely appealable final order because the third party presumably lacks a sufficient stake in the proceeding to risk contempt by refusing compliance." Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n.11 (1992). The danger to the privilege holder — that privileged or confidential documents will be disclosed and
Entities connected to both United States and Church of Scientology

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONLeon Black
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONJane Doe
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Kenneth Marra
PERSON
Donald Trump
PERSONDarren Indyke
PERSON
Julie K. Brown
PERSON
Samantha Power
PERSONMartin Weinberg
PERSON
Michael Cohen
PERSON
Richard Kahn
PERSONRoy Black
PERSON
Colorado
LOCATION
Bloomberg L.P.
ORGANIZATION
Wilbur Ross
PERSON