Epstein Secrets

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

FLSD Docket 09/28/2010 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED SEPTEM

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2012 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENOR

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t

FLSD Docket 11'01 '2010 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v . JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' RESPO

appropriateness of the investigatory methods employed, which raises voting rights and first amendment concerns. This case is distinguishable from O'Shea and City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 76 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (Lyons). In O'Shea, the plaintiffs chal- lenged certain arres

Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd, Chicago, Illi- nois, for Appellant. Chad McGowan, S. Randall Hood, McGowan, Hood, Felder & Johnson, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Randall M. Eason, Bagnell & Eason, L.L.C., Lancaster, South Carolina, for Ap- pellees. Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and

s v. Aguilar, 783 FE Supp. 2d 1108 (C.D. Cal. 201 1); Order, United States v. Esquenazi, supra note 44, ECF No. 309; see also Order, United States v. O'Shea, No. 09-cr-629 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012), ECF No. 142; Order, United States y. Nguyen, No. 08-cr-522 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2009), ECE No. 144. These dist

3); 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-2(a) (3), 78dd-3(a)(3). BI See, CL5 Complaint, SEC v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 11-cv-686 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011) [hereinafter SEC v. Johnson & Johnson| (bribes paid through Greek and Romanian agents)), available at http: //wwwssec. gov/ litigation/ complaints/ 2011/comp21922. pdf; ; Criminal