Epstein Secrets

207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 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 MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY

made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an

, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is s

is time because the issue of whether the Victim Victims' Rights Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 . . . To the extent the Court were to consider invalidating the Non-Prosecution Agreement as a remedy, Jeffrey Epstein reserves the right to interv

ene is denied ... [and] 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). All four of the factors suggest that the Court should deny Epstein's motion as untimely. I.

intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Victim Victims' Rights Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . . To the extent the Court were to consider invalidating the Non-Prosecution Agreement as a remedy, Jeffrey Epstein reserves the

ene is denied ... [and] 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely. Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). All four of the factors suggest that the Court should deny Epstein's motion as untimely. I.

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 MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstein hereby mov

F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983). "Timeliness" is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from all the circumstances." Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263-64 (5th Cir. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is s