Epstein Secrets

cument 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND FIRM AFFILIATION Attorney Bradley J. Edwards, hereby provi

Doe. Such risk and speculation about possible criminal charges does not establish a real need for a stay. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (refusing to grant a stay a civil proceeding before any indictment was returned because Fifth Amendment conce

ment 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009! Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY COMPLAINT . Plaintiff, Ja

Doe. Such risk and speculation about possible criminal charges does not establish a real need for a stay. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (refusing to grant a stay a civil proceeding before any indictment was returned because Fifth Amendment conce

th the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. MEM Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. on

al transcripts, `the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like."' Id. at 500, citin SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. I SDFL lOP 8.01.00 provides: "Grand jury matters, and all matters reasonably related to the original grand jury mat

ocument 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04:07)2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR F

on by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (51h Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by t

M Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR F

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (511' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by

Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES I JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT A

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc." United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (5' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by the