Epstein Secrets

207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY

made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY

made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein

n FLSD Docket 12/06/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marranohnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR A PROMPT RULING DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane D

TAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to request an expedited ruling on the Government's Motion to Stay. The Government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other motions) the Court has yet to rule

n FLSD Docket 12/06/2012 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marranohnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR A PROMPT RULING DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane D

TAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to request an expedited ruling on the Government's Motion to Stay. The Government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other motions) the Court has yet to rule