Epstein Secrets

FLSD Docket 04)07.2011 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, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. AT

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11ih Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In assessing a claim

given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that

se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12 whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), Eijil El Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim 782 F.24 952, 95455 (11th Cir. 1986)("in assessing a claim

/2011 Page 1 of 2 • aitadedataa% • AND ASSOCIATES October 9, 2008 United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV- Dear I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements t

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheitn, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In accessing a claim