Epstein Secrets

milar to those in the instant actions (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action")) Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigati

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

milar to those in the instant actions (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action")) Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigati

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

milar to those in the instant actions (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action")) Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigati

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

nal case described in that motion (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action"). As explained below, the parallel federal criminal action against him described in that motion (In re Grand Jury, No. FGJ 07-103(WPB), United St

, 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

milar to those in the instant actions (State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Palm Beach County) (the "Florida Criminal Action")) Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "USAO") began a federal grand-jury investigati

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