Epstein Secrets

unsel.for Plaintiff, C.MA. Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West

nt. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenfh 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiffs overly broad request see

ellsouth.net Co-Counsel for Defendant, J ejfrey Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 523 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2010 Page 10 of 12 Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 South Australian A venue, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983 ecf@b

F.R.D. 583, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (denying motion to intervene, but allowing party to participate as amicus curiae in the case), ajf'd, 556 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Mass. Mar. Acad., 76 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D. Mass. 1977) (same). Amicus status is particularly warranted where, as here, the put

were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. During the federal investigation of Epstein, Bruce Reinhart was a senior Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Within months after the non-prosecution agr

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

HART COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to oppose the motion of attorney Bruce E. Reinhart to permissively intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (DE #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be

and seek Rule 11 sanctions for the allegations. But as a non-party, he lacks standing to bootstrap his way into this case via a Rule 11 motion. As the Second Circuit has explained: 3 EFTA00795276 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05)16:2011 Page 4 of 8 Although the language of Rule 11

sel to seek agreement that she would accept service of the subpoena in this matter. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. refused to allow her counsel to accept service of the sub

a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule "liberally" to allow service so long as the "the type of 7 EFTA00617957 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 160 Filed 05/

m the fact that they were evading service 14 while we were trying to obtain their testimony last year. 15 Eventually they show up with lawyers, a Bruce Reinhart I think 16 is an Epstein lawyer; I think at some point Ms. had 17 Mr. Goldberger, who's an attorney for Mr. Epstein now. They've 18 both made

hat we proposed to the Court about the 18 financial status comes from the very cases that are in the 19 Second Circuit, and that's the words that the Second Circuit 20 and district courts in the Southern District use. And I quote 21 from Tillery: No evidence as to defendant's financial status 22 may be pres

FTA00182754 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 8 Bruce Reinhart, Esq. Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Defendan Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Ricc

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid

t a complaint filed against him by victims’ lawyer Paul Cassell was dismissed by the Justice Department. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016449 --- PAGE BREAK --- Bruce E. Reinhart, Member, McDonald Hopkins LLC. (PRNewsFoto/McDonald Hopkins LLC) PR NEWSWIRE HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016450 --- PAGE BREAK --- That same year, 2011, more

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO