Epstein Secrets

t to defendant Moussaoui, in satisfaction of the government's criminal discovery obligations. The victims were plaintiffs in civil actions filed in the Southern District of New York, against private airlines, airports, and security services. Id. at 224. The victims sought non-public criminal discovery materials for

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 377I(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession• Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00208109 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR)• Kenna (same); and Sacane (no

does not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pre-sentence investigation repor

rted "upon information and belie?' that they understood that Epstein was involved in on-going plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Victims' Petition (doe. #1) at 1. On July 9, 2008, the Government responded with a sealed response (quickly unsealed by the Court), that

does not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the. CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pit-sentence investigation repo

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00230167 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no

rted "upon information and belie?' that they understood that Epstein was involved in on-going plea negotiations with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Victims' Petition (doe. #1) at 1. On July 9, 2008, the Government responded with a sealed response (quickly unsealed by the Court), that

ided ample information concerning the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and other issues related to the defendants' sentencing. The district court in Coxton found that the victims in that case were present during trial and continued to enjoy access to the United States Attorney's Office. Id. at 740. Th

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000921 EFTA00230745 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Ke

of any certain set of facts, other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this Office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that arc not relevant to the resolution

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00177150 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no

, dots not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States'. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pre-sentence investigation repor

against Epstein, they asserted their rights "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred" — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But ev

ctims cannot review the PSR is that the PSR is already reviewed by the Court. Thus, in the first PSR case cited by the Government, United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), the Court declined to disclose PSR information to the victims because "[n]othing in the PSR enhances or changes