Epstein Secrets

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB),2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual an

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB),2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual an

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB),2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual an

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

n a federal grand jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant action (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) ("the Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual a

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant actions (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB),2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) (the "Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual an

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif, Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it wi

n a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant action (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) ("the Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual a

e 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal

nsel would like to refer to the non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court, See Jane Doe Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-C111- 80893-AtiRRii-JOHNSON. To facilitate all these discussions, the non-prosecution agreement 5 EFTA0

e 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal

el would like to refer to the non-prosecution agreement in a parallel civil suit that is pending before this court. See Jane Doe v. Jefrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08-CIV- -_8089.3.MARRAJORNSON. To facilitate all-these dim cssions, the agreement 5 EFTA00232315 Ca

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. I Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

n a federal grand-jury investigation into allegations arising out of the same incidents alleged in the instant action (Grand Jury No. 07-103 (WPB), United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) ("the Federal Criminal Action"). In September 2007, the USAO and Mr. Epstein entered into a highly unusual a

inger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 (1979), and this expectation of privacy is generally codified in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Cri

8-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 54 of 54 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV- United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney Col