Epstein Secrets

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, ROY BLACK, et al., Intervenors. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY

y, no one else gets treated like that"). See Composite Exhibit 2. The publicity-generating comments by Plaintiffs' counsel have continued since the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. The wave began on April 21, 2014. That day, the Washington Post published a lengthy letter written by one of Plaintiffs' lead counsel contai

n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time EFTA00229756 of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvement with defe

ed) (discussing narcotics defendants). In United States v. Sciacca , one of the district judges in the Southern District of Florida summarized the Eleventh Circuit's approach to the analysis of the presumption as follows. Once it is determined that the statutory presumption applies based upon the crime charged, t

by-the ttemeyls-Offieer Mr. Edwards first saw a reference to the NPA on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That-pleading-was-the-first-publie mention-ef-the-neit-preseeution-agreement-and-the-fifst-diselesere-to-MirE4wards-(ead-thus-te

y, no one else gets treated like that"). See Composite Exhibit 2. The publicity-generating comments by Plaintiffs' counsel have continued since the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. The wave began on April 21, 2014. That day, the Washington Post published a lengthy letter written by one of Plaintiffs' lead counsel contai