Epstein Secrets

Efiftl M20. F2Its11308a. e feage718of 13 App.-0790 EXHIBIT A EFTA00076398 CaSeZ113115aDanlaillaIBIADditelitsithittlalrYa 'title:03 App.-0791 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCS: DATE F

information from those deposition transcripts for two business days, i.e., through Friday, July 31, 2020, so that Ms. Maxwell may seek relief from the Court of Appeals. Any sealed materials that do not quote from or disclose information from those deposition transcripts shall be unsealed on July 30, 2020, in the m

, Intervenors-Appellants, EFTA00092308 V. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019 DECIDED: JULY 3, 2019 Before: r —ABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Interv

ite the unsealing process). 22 Upon issuance of our mandate, a minimally redacted version of the summary judgment record will be made accessible on the Court of Appeals docket. We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth d

296697325-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175264 Case'9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 RIPON 1 105 0.1 ELECTRONIC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Mar. 24, 2009 STEVEN m.LARim0RE CLERK N.S. DIST. CT. s.o. Or FLA.• MIAMI 09-80469-Civ-RYSKAMPNITUNAC JANE DOE II

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

he individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

e, one of the reasons behind 6(e) is to protect the reputations of persons who are under investigation but not indicted. This is a corollary to what the Court of Appeals found to be a due process protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution — namely, "that the liberty and property con

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

duct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. 'Ile Court determine

ssentials of prison life. D. Litigation challenging conditions of detention at ADX Florence 110. In Sattar v. Gonzales 2009 WL 606115 (D.Colo.2009) the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed a challenge to conditions of detention at ADX Florence and to the imposition of special administrative measu

ing to the availability of periodical reviews and the step down program, confinement at ADX was not indeterminate. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, though they have all been transferred out of ADX. 113. In Silverstein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons 704 F Supp. 2d 1077 (201