Epstein Secrets

anced that specific argument. 3. As you know, in our earlier pleadings filed months and months ago, we had repeatedly relied on cases such as US'. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996). Yet in your 13 page motion to dismiss, you did not discuss US' Walker or any of the case law that we had previously ci

seal. Isn't Justice Department policy to allow the public read sentences such as this one? More generally, isn't the public entitled to know the Mr. Ferrer has filed a brief saying that even where the Government and a sex offender deliberately conspired to deny victims their promised CVRA rights, the f

When other plea arrangements have been negotiated in violation of federal law, they have been stricken by the courts. For example, United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1990, held that where a sentence on a new crime could not run concurrently with a probation revocation the defendant was the

ney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jane Does I and 2 v. United States Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, we have corresponded with you in the past on the Crime Victims' Rights Act case captioned above. And you met with Jane Doe No. 1 seve

" ld. at 1260. That is essentially what Prof. Dershowitz seeks here. Furthermore, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is also appropriate. See Walker. Jim Dandy Co., 747 F.2d 1360, 1365 (11th Cir. 1984). IV. These facts are distinguishable from those presented by the earlier intervenor motion f

ourt's anticipated approval. Three months later, having received no response from the Government, victims' counsel sent an additional letter to Mr. Ferrer. requesting agreement to add an additional victim to the case — a young woman identified in current pleadings as Jane Doe No. 34: Dear Mr. Ferrer: