Epstein Secrets

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

, 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

es investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(bX2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456, *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the governme

cuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "regaining" a stay in a case . . . where . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623, 6 laNeMaTEin 1059 Gmtro Avon". Sing 340.COttwur Gaon. FLORIDA 33B1 09/1212019 CONFIal53ENTIAL Agency to Agenc

s investigation." 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b)(2). The only reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government

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