Epstein Secrets

cution agreement and the release of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still

n in a recent pleading, see Doc 381, the identity of each of the Jane Does has been known to Mr. Epstein for many years in part as a result of each Jane Doe's decision to delay the litigation of their CVRA claims in order to prioritize their parallel monetary damage lawsuits against Mr. Epstein during whi

385 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2016 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant / INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still intend to pursue the remedy of invalidating M

tiff's MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the US. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe & filed by United States of America. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 05/30/2011) 06/17/2011 85 Notice of Supplemental Authority re 48 Plaintiff's MOTION for

ed: 03/29/2012) 04/17/2012 L62 MOTION for Protective Order by Intervenors Black Weinberg and LeJkowitz and Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 For Production, Use, and Disclosure of Settlement Negotiations by Roy Black. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/17/2012) 04/17/2012 161 MOTION fo

Page 18 of 24 further notice. (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 2 134 *SEALED* Sealed Document Supplemental Response Regarding Remedies in Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 134 [raise] res

207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY

made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

ult in a disposition of the charges in the next several days." [CVRA Petition, DE 1, 13]. Claiming to be wrongfully excluded from those discussions, Jane Doe 1 asserted the violation of her CVRA rights to confer with federal prosecutors; to be treated with fairness; to receive timely notice of relevant cou

ntiffs MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe &filed by United States of America. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 05/30/2011) 06/17/2011 fd Notice of Supplemental Authority ma& Plaintiffs MOTION for Sum

t include applicable reliefs. (Is) (Entered: 12/07/2012) 12/10/2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support ofJane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY

made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. While according due respect to Judge Marra's prior opinions indic