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

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

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha

t believed the Agreement was comprised of all three parts mentioned above. This belief was expressed in victim notifications, including one sent to Jane Doe #1,2 the Government's July 9, 2008 response 2 The victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNI

rmation received concerning the Agreement. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consu

t believed the Agreement was comprised of all three parts mentioned above. This belief was expressed in victim notifications, including one sent to Jane Doe #1,2 the Government's July 9, 2008 response 2 The victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

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- CW-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

on as a teen and sexually abused. Prominent Miami at- torney Robert Josefsberg filed the most recent federal lawsuit last week, on behalf of the Jane Doe 101 who allegedly visited Epstein a few times while 17 years old and was paid S200 at least once for her time there, according to the complaint.

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

efamatory copycat of the first." There has been a twist in the first Jane Doe lawsuit. Her mother in Georgia contends that her former husband — Jane Doe's father — con- sulted with neither of them before filing the lawsuit. She is asking a judge to halt the litigation until her daughter turns 18 in

e wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document. Marra ruled "If a specific tangible need a