Epstein Secrets

ictims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pen

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ictims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pen

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ictims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pen

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ictims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pen

, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I.1) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MC

ictims were minors at the time of the Defendants' actions alleged in both [the civil and criminal] cases, § 3509(k) applies." Id. (emphasis added). The United States Department of Justice has itself emphatically embraced the interpretation of § 3509(k) as applying to stay all civil actions relating to sex offenses against minors, pen

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino