Epstein Secrets

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

on FLSD Docket 05:02/2011 Page 6 of 8 other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore I Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted) (addressing an individual's "next friend" status in the context of an appeal); see Loncharl

FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE

accessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore I Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted); see Lonchar • Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.1992) (applying Whitmore). Obviously the

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

ll inquiry, such as constitutional standing, that "serve to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process." Whitmore, 495 U.S., at 155, 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135. EFTA00222876 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

ll inquiry, such as constitutional standing, that "serve to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process." Whitmore, 495 U.S., at 155, 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135. (Emphasis added) Defendant's argument that the Court should abstain from deciding the

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

accessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted); see Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.I992) (applying Whitmore). Obviously th