Epstein Secrets

ng are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and lijourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1 187." See also Dodd U S , 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 o

you have asked us to provide such an advisory opinion. The request relates to Mr. Epstein's Motion to Dismiss in toto the suit filed against him by Jane Doe 103, whom we understand is one of the victims identified through the 2006 through 2007 investigation that culminated in the signing of the Non-Prose

ng are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S. 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 o

to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs filed by . (Hill, Jack) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04 /22%2009 63 r 313:: MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to

of compulsory process, and thus are difficult to identify or interview," such that "(lequiring extensive investigation would defeat the purpose of Ethel motion." Id. Of course, the movant must provide "enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties' interests." Id. The court

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

of how birly to implement the § 2255 portions of the iNgretanent so that real victims, if any. who in bet suffered -personal injury as a result of Ethel violation- if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as 1X U.S.C. § 2422(h) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial

ed to include Jane Doe #2 among the list of Epstein's victims. Ironically, these same attempts to protect Jane Doe #2's rights are now being used by Jane Doe #2 to allege violations of the CVRA. Petitioners also allege that the letters sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 during the period when Epstein wa