Epstein Secrets

d by the government arc subject to a protective order prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 EFTA00177187 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on

. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF' OBJECTION Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for disclosure of settlement letters between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein du

AM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 19 Non-Prosecution Agreement reached between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doc 2 also seek other unspecified relief, which they call "appropriate remedies," for the government's purported failure to keep them invol

3771(d)(3). Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witnes

Ponzi scheme, RRA was also engaged in litigation against Epstein in three civil cases. The cases were Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV- 80893 ("Jane Doe"), U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida; L.M. v. Epstein ("LM"), Case No. 50-2008 CA 028051XXXXMB-AB; and E.W. v. Epstein ("EW" or "Jan

e of obtaining Richie's investment in the Epstein actions. Epstein believes that the federal complaint in L.M. v. Epstein was shown to Legamaro and Ritchie at that time and that it was prepared by Edwards with highly-charged sexual allegations solely to be shown to induce investment in the Epstein Acti

ad stacked around the conference room. 17. On or about October 13, 2009, Illinois attorney, Michael Legamaro, and his client, hedge fund operator Thane Ritchie, were also invited to examine Epstein case files and a flight log displayed by Rothstein that allegedly contained the names of numerous celebrities

Ponzi scheme, RRA was also engaged in litigation against Epstein in three civil cases. The cases were Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV- 80893 ("Jane Doe"), U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida; L.M. v. Epstein ("LM"), Case No. 50-2008 CA 028051XXXXMB-AB; and E.W. v. Epstein ("EW" or "Jan

ad stacked around the conference room. 17. On or about October 13, 2009, Illinois attorney, Michael Legamaro, and his client, hedge fund operator Thane Ritchie, were also invited to examine Epstein case files and a flight log displayed by Rothstein that allegedly contained the names of numerous celebrities

e of obtaining Richie's investment in the Epstein actions. Epstein believes that the federal complaint in L.M. v. Epstein was shown to Legamaro and Ritchie at that time and that it was prepared by Edwards solely to be shown to induce investment in the Epstein Actions and advance the Ponzi scheme, as de

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

771(d)(3). Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cX I) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witnes

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

New York] commonly deny disqualification motions." Gonnin v. Hubregsen, No. 08CIV.7674(PGG), 2009 WL 508269, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2009) (citing Ritchie, 2008 WL 4178152 at *14; Stratavest Ltd. v. Rogers, 903 F.Supp. 663, 668 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (Sweet, J.) ("it is too early at this point in the proceedi

llegal, Marra directed lawyers for the victims and the government to file legal briefs outlining ways to resolve the case. Two of Epstein's victims, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, said they want the deal invalidated and Epstein prosecuted. Sources have told the Herald that at least 16 other women als

thing you can do half-heartedly. You have to be on the ground, on call, 24/7. It is one of the most demanding positions in the country," Councilman Ritchie Tones told the Norwood News. Torres would've wanted to look elsewhere for a NYCHA chair, pointing out that a successful would be "someone who has e

/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

3771(d)(3). Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witnes

• aitadedataa% • AND ASSOCIATES October 9, 2008 Dexter Lee, AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear Mr. Lee: I am writing to call to your attention two potential

3771(d)(3). Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witnes

to trial. She was just 15 years old when she was drawn into Epstein’s exploitative world in 1998. In her civil writ against him, under the pseudonym Jane Doe 102’ she alleged that her duties included being ‘sexually exploited by Epstein’s adult male peers including royalty’. Now, horrified by the evidence

chic! Alessandra Ambrosio shows off toned legs with mini skirt as the stunner goes for a denim-on-denim look Victoria’s Secret Angel Madonna and Guy Ritchie on brink of deal over custody of their 15- year-old son Rocco as judge agrees to call off showdown court hearing for more talks Gillian Anderson loo