Epstein Secrets

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

iscuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DOJ's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve

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 (

iscuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DOJ's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve

U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 46' Street Miami, FL 33131Via Re: Protecting the Rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Dear Dexter: First, as mentioned before, please feel free to call me "Siii rather than "Judge Cassell." Brad Edwards and I hope to build a clos

for these courts (including courts of this Circuit). See, e.g., In re Stewart (I Ph Cir. 2008) (CVRA enforcement action commenced by motion); In re Antrobus (10th Circuit 2008) (same); In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) (same). Indeed, in an important case in the District of Montana involving enforcement of vict

on of Ms. in a long-running pro bono crime victims' rights act case Professor Cassell is handling through the University of Utah appellate clinic, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (filed S.D. Fla. 2008). 3 EFTA00600138 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 89 Filed 04/10/16 Page

. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of "Amy," a child pornography victim seeking restitution); In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2008) (arguing for opportunity for victim to deliver a victim impact statement). His previous experience will be valuable

07 with the execution of the NPA but instead deferred any disclosure until after Mr. Epstein's plea of guilty in state court. 3 EFTA00621911 3. Jane Doe 2 was hostile to the efforts of the USAO and FBI to cooperate against Mr. Epstein, see Villafana Declaration, Dkt. 14 at pg. 4, 6, see Dkt. 361, Exhib

delphia fraud case and stating that "the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime"); In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that "the purpose of the CVRA is to permit victim participation in ongoing criminal matters"); In re

. Cassell, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida Re: Protecting the Rights of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Dear First, as mentioned before, please feel free to call me "Paul" rather than "Judge Cassell." Brad Edwards and I hope to build a close and f

for these courts (including courts of this Circuit). See, e.g., In re Stewart (I Ph Cir. 2008) (CVRA enforcement action commenced by motion); In re Antrobus (10th Circuit 2008) (same); In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) (same). Indeed, in an important case in the District of Montana involving enforcement of vict

-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Civil Action No. PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA • Government's Response to Petition

cuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DOJ's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute"') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve

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 (

scuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DDT's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute"') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve

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 (

scuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DDT's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute"') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve

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 (

scuss ... allegations of criminal acts and [DOJ's] decisions to prosecute or not prosecute"') (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)); see also, e.g., In re Antrobus, 563 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) ("The CVRA contemplates that individuals asserting victim status may bring a motion in the district court eve