Epstein Secrets

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

r. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (_. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November, 201

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

. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November

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

t of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (1 I th Cir. 1986); National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907-08 (D.C.Cir. 1977); see also Catmint) v. Berry, 922 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1990)(district court denied intervention at liability stage

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 LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstein hereby mov

he circumstances which must be considered is 2 EFTA00209265 "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Mr. Epstein's motion is timely because it seeks intervention only for the limited purpose of opposing disclosu