Epstein Secrets

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

Clerk theolyil e cad dwa. IS CI INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERS( Of THE FOAMS NOTICE: Altorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed I. (a) PLAINTIFFS -177 re: Jane Poe DEFENDANTS 5-thfeso/ - fttectagi OW 0 D.C. JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN M.LARIMORE CLERK U.S. 01ST. CT. 6.0. Of ILA. - MIAMI (b) Comb &Residence &Pi

ce of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe'. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has n

he Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 491DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this SIGNED AND D

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

ce of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRAJOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has

e Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this GTIKDAiti t5

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

e Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this ::a3TJCDA74

/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Paul Cassell 383 S. University Salt Lake Cit UT 84112-0730 Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for M , E.W. and Jane Doe Jay Howell Jay Howell & Associates 644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for n, E.W. and Jane Doe 14

gs initiated by Edwards, but Edwards, himself, would be in violation of the Court's ruling by his reference to the e-mails in filings in this Court, the Appellate Court and the Bankruptcy Court. Epstein has complied fully with this Court's March 8, 2018, in-court rulings. The disc is sealed, the 47 exhibits (also r

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

owever, Justice Blackmun, in casting the deciding vote, did so because he was of the opinion that the remedy sought (mandamus) was premature, since the Appellate Court which had reversed the District Court, should have simply directed it to reconsider the issue in light of the very limited circumstances under which

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

owever, Justice Blackmun, in casting the deciding vote, did so because he was of the opinion that the remedy sought (mandamus) was premature, since the Appellate Court which had reversed the District Court, should have simply directed it to reconsider the issue in light of the very limited circumstances under which

sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(dX2) aril (3)(A) and (C) (referencing Rule 37(aX5)), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and compelling the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 within fifteen (15) days and as grounds therefore would state: 1. On August 16, 2009, the deposition of Jane Doe No. 4 was noticed for Septe

e Defendant, Mr. Epstein, and his attorney an opportunity to have this Court's orders reviewed by the 4th DCA. If the Clerk gets no direction from the Appellate Court, she shall disclose the documents on the date referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Bea 1. Palm Beach County, MOM day of June, 2009.