Epstein Secrets

the district court in the Does case also rejected Government efforts to dismiss the action. The district court

sented the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

ights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights ® John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in t

sonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do

esented the case to the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights were expansive and could apply before charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least

onally entered into an agreement with the Federal Government acknowledging that approximately thirty-four (34)

y 2005, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern _ District of Florida learned of Epstein’s repeated sexual a

he summer of 2014, Edwards and Cassell, contacted Government counsel to request their agreement to add two add

s sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Florida, specifically case no. 08-cv-80736- KA

of a commercial nature whether they belong to the Government or the industrial lend- ing institutions connecte

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) has been a party to lawsuits in the South- ern District of New York, both as a plain- tiff and defendant.

DE 1). Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing t

eclare as follows: 1. Iam an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Iam a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action. I respectfully submit

rs, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). 4 GIUFFRE002847 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014680

dings," *° to "confer with [the] attorney for the Government n 4l in the case, and to attend court proceedin

rious crimes the right to restitution. *°* Reinforcing those laws, the CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right 43 Magistrate Judge Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York, who has written many thoughtful opinions on the CVRA, has taken a contrary position. See Report and Recommendation, United States v. Ingrassis, No.

overning information subject to disclosure by the Government in criminal cases, nor any other federal rule or

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --