Epstein Secrets

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVID

n trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or

FLSD Docket 10/28/2013 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WI

in trust by the Government because of "common-law trust principles." Id. at 2325. In rejecting the tribe's claim, the Supreme Court held that "the Tribe must point to a right conferred by statute . . . in order to obtain otherwise privilege information from the Government against its wishes." Id. (e

given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that

n trust funds, contending that the federal agencies are "often charged with protecting competing interests, including some potentially adverse to a Tribe's interest." Id. at 247. The district court rejected these arguments, finding the claim "that the government's sovereign interests somehow negate or