Epstein Secrets

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

Clerk theolyil e cad dwa. IS CI INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERS( Of THE FOAMS NOTICE: Altorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed I. (a) PLAINTIFFS -177 re: Jane Poe DEFENDANTS 5-thfeso/ - fttectagi OW 0 D.C. JULY 7, 2008 STEVEN M.LARIMORE CLERK U.S. 01ST. CT. 6.0. Of ILA. - MIAMI (b) Comb &Residence &Pi

ce of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe'. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has n

ON AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") pending review, and states: 1. In the event the

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

ce of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 08- CIY-80893-MARRAJOHNSON. Although Epstein's counsel has

ON AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") pending review, and states: 1. In the event the

cuments are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of t

ON AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 9.310, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, moves to stay disclosure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum (collectively, the "NPA") pending review, and states: 1. In the event the

2 At the March 8, 2018 hearing, University of Utah Law Professor, Paul G. Cassell, Esq., appeared pro hac vice below for non-parties L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, on a limited confidentiality issue not before this Court. On behalf of non-parties, L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, Mr. Cassell filed an Unopposed Emerge

original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari under Article V, section 4(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, and under Rule 9.030(b)(3) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ordering bifurcation where claims are inextricably woven warrants certiorari relief. See, e.g., Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser—Busch, Inc., 710 So