Epstein Secrets

-80736-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 8 of 25 best promoted when the existence of a federal right is directly reached . ." Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 925 (I Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). In this case, it is quite clear that the Government'

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

-80736-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 8 of 25 best promoted when the existence of a federal right is directly reached . ." Morrison. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 925 (I Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). In this case, it is quite clear that the Government's

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

implicate Constitutional concerns. Of course, the Constitution only constrains governmental actors — not private parties. See, e.g., United States. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 2 Because of this inconsistency between what government lawyers have already disclosed and what the Government is now arguing that t

arding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier order of the magistrate judge. In response, the Government "takes no position" on the motion. Gov't Resp. at 1. Accordingly, this part of the victims' motion should be granted. II. NONE OF THE MATERIALS IN THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE BARRED FROM DISCLOSUR

mplicate Constitutional concerns. Of course, the Constitution only constrains governmental actors — not private parties. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 2 Because of this inconsistency between what government lawyers have already disclosed and what the Government is now arguing that t

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar