Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DO ' MOTION TO INTERVENE OF COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by

s to intervene unless requested by one of the parties." Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1983 Amendment (emphasis added). New York News, Inc.. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 488 (2d Cir. 1992). If motion is allowed to succeed, then legions of bystanders will have the ability to intervene in lawsuits throu

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STAT

rmissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un

FLSD Docket 05)16.2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF BRUCE REINHART COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also r

to intervene unless requested by one of the parties." Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1983 Amendment (emphasis added). New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 488 (2d Cir. 1992). If Reinhart's motion is allowed to succeed, then legions of bystanders will have the ability to intervene in laws

AM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual orga

rmissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un

FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF TH

ermissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News'. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un