Epstein Secrets

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

lerk of the Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.) 1(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS JANE DOE NO. 2, JEFFREY EPSTEIN (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF OUT OF STATE (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 3, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. / JANE DOE NO. 4, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. JANE DOE NO. 5, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN. CASE NO.: 08-80119-CIV-KAM-L ---- DC

No. 3-89-293-H. Jan. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify b

t 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY