Epstein Secrets

Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' REPLY TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOES #2'S RESPONSE IN

3771(dX3), in favor of pursuing civil settlement actions against Mr. Epstein prior to, rather than concurrently with, litigating their CVRA rights. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai