Epstein Secrets

efrauding over 90 investors of $5.6 million in a wire fraud scheme. According to the article, Niswonger was sentenced to 150 months in prison, while Johnson was sentenced to 188 months. Both men pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges and were ordered to repay the victims, with their assets being forfeited

), Newsweek (11/15, Higham), New York Daily News (11/15, Schladebeck), New York Post (11/15, Donlevy), New York Times (11/15, Coleman), NTD (11/15, Blalock), Patch (11/15, IJssner), People (11/15, Sheffield), Politico (11/15, Svirnovskiy), USA Today (11/15, Mansfield), and Washington Examiner. Trump Pa

M Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05,02/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JA

even applies. In any event, it is obvious that grand jury secrecy only extends to matters that occurred in secret before the grand jury. See, e.g., Blalock. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside th

M Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE

Statest Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock' United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside th

Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:02/2011 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS AC

tates.. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock'. United States, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside t

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 LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstei

overnment actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States v. Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individuals may be entitled to relief after there has been a Rule

Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATI

ates v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United Slates, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside

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 MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION EFTA_R1_000041

vernment actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States it Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individuals may be entitled to relief after there has been a Rule

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

Ex pane Jones County Grand Jury, First Judicial Dist., 705 So. 2d 1308 (Miss. 1997). [F1436) Kent I. Benson, 945 F.2d 372 (11th Cir. 1990. [F1437) Blalock LU.S., refill; denied, 856 F.2d 200 (11th Cr. 1988) and (distingured by, estin McDaniel, 760 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1991)) and (disagreed with o

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 LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstei

vernment actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States v. Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individuals may be entitled to relief after there has been a Rule