Epstein Secrets

s Office for its failure to discharge its responsibilities under the Act. If the Court wishes to proceed to an expeditious conclusion to this case, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have no objection to the Court setting up an expedited schedule for proceeding on the case. The Court should be aware, however, o

INSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution. (DE 41). On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an Order administratively closing this case in light of related

n the originals of both documents to me by November 9, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE I), Jane Doe # I brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

the originals of both documents to me by November 9, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE I ). Jane Doe # 1 brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The -Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

n the originals of both documents to me by November 9, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE I), Jane Doe # I brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

n the originals of both documents to me by November 9, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE I), Jane Doe # I brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA 's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

the originals of both documents to me by November 12, 2010. With respect to the claims asserted in the litigation, in the Victim's Petition (DE 1), Jane Doe # I brought claims against the United States for alleged violation of her rights under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CVRA"). The Jane Doe #1 petit

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at 1¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was) an orchestrated decision (between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein) to d