Epstein Secrets

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F

treet. N.W. Adams. Geosgia 30303 Mee Ley Clerk of Court April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES Appeal Number: 13.12923-CC Case Style: Jane Doe'. Roy Black District Court Docket No: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Far tales arid loans silt Raw ell I mamas say This Court requires all counsel to file docu

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F

Street. N.W. Adams. Georgia 30303 John Ley Ckrtof Cost April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES Appeal Number: 13.12923-CC Case Style: Jane Doe'. Roy Black District Court Docket No: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Far rules arid loans silt fern till uscourts.spy This Court requires all counsel to file d

s in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States v. Campa, 459

trict of Florida accepted Epstein's case for prosecution, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued victim notification letters to two minors, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, in June and August 2007. Extensive plea negotiations ensued between the United States and Epstein. On September 24, 2007,

States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 10 of 75 United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1128 (2006) 6 United States v. Contra Costa County Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1

ver his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. In response to that order, settlement negotiation correspondence authored by government prosecutors (

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F

trict of Florida accepted Epstein's case for prosecution, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued victim notification letters to two minors, Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, in June and August 2007. Extensive plea negotiations ensued between the United States and Epstein. On September 24, 2007,

committed; (2) the defendant knew the offense was being committed; and (3) the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate it. United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir.2004) (citations omitted); see also United Stales' New- man, 490 1"2d 139, 143 (3d Cir.I974) (in order to be liable as

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr