Epstein Secrets

tters occurring before the grand jury, but their interests, as well as what they would bring to the Court on the issue, vary substantially. Although the Eleventh Circuit has said that "Where is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 5 EFTA00209268 the interve

hat the current [party's] representation 'may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose

pon learning that the Court would consider rescission in fashioning the remedy in this case (assuming, of course, that plaintiffs Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin ex reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3

that the current [party's) representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal."' Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) ("The propos

aluate prejudice to the plaintiffs. In any event, there will be no prejudice to plaintiffs in terms of timeliness in allowing Mr. Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin a reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d

that the current [party's] representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose

tters occurring before the grand jury, but their interests, as well as what they would bring to the Court on the issue, vary substantially. Although the Eleventh Circuit has said that "[t]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 4 EFTA00584631 the inter

hat the current [party's] representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is `minimal."' Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose