Epstein Secrets

urt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

urt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285 (Fla. 1930); AVVA-BC, LLC v. Amiel, 25 So.3d 7, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ("[W]here a party seeking rescission has discovered grounds

rt support a finding of jurisdiction, are the following discovery requests: • An order from this Court that the Government provide Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 all information in its possession, including documents and correspondence, about why it decided not to prosecute Epstein's crimes against them (

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20