Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S REPLY TO PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S SEALED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

ing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction must properly be addressed and resolved before this Court takes any further action in the case. E.g. , University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juri

r Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction was served via United States Mail this 24th day of January, 2012, upon Counsel for Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, accompanied by a copy of the November 7, 2011 Sealed Order Granting Government's Motion for Limited Disclosure of Grand Jury Matter. Pursuant to

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdi

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdi

urt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

urt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris