Epstein Secrets

Jury Matter. Pursuant to the Order regarding the disclosure of Grand Jury Information, a copy was not served upon the proposed intervenors. O, -O— Marie Villafatta Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does I and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Cou

F. App'x 337, 346 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Here, the district court exceeded its equitable power when it ordered [defendant] to apologize.")). In Woodruff, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding that courts "are not commissioned to run around getting apologies" and reasoned that the law is not usually concerned wi

f Grand Jury Matter. Pursuant to the Order regarding the disclosure of Grand Jury Information, a copy was not served upon the proposed intervenors. Marie Villafafta Assistant United States Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does I and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Cou

F. App'x 337, 346 (6th Cir. 2002) ("Here, the district court exceeded its equitable power when it ordered [defendant] to apologize.")). In Woodruff, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior holding that courts "are not commissioned to run around getting apologies" and reasoned that the law is not usually concerned wi

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Vi°Mena. Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. July 31, 2007 1:37 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (US

e upset that the photos had been taken without their consent. They asked the Lackawanna County Dis- trict Attorney to conduct a criminal inves- for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. EFTA00226293 DOE I CHAMBERLIN 193 Clteas2119 KM )92 (irdClr. 2002) Sexual Exploitation Act (PCASEA) against photograp

phasis added). Courts have held that Brady obligations extend only to prosecutors, because the Supreme Court has not imposed this duty on others. See Villasana v. Wilhoit, 368 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2004). w 4 See Brady, 373 U.S. at 88. w > 162 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1998). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

ght of the conference report on Rule 16, compelling disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for