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

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11ih Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In assessing a claim

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

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheitn, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In accessing a claim

this case. On December 10, 2010, co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah College of Law, and I met with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida regarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. At

se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12 whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), Eijil El Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim 782 F.24 952, 95455 (11th Cir. 1986)("in assessing a claim