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:

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 38 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. JE

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:

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 38 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. JE

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:

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 38 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. JE

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:

cuments conventionally in any other division of the Southern District of Florida. 1 EFTA00222689 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 07'162008 Page 2 of 3 a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." Unite

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:

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 38 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. JE

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 I. Francis. No. 5:

lorida Jack Alan Goldber cr Esq. Robert D. Critton. Esq. Is/ Adam D. Horowitz - 8 - EFTA00175625 Case 9:08-cv 119-KAM Document 69 Enter in FLSD Docket D2/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 I JEFFREY EP