Epstein Secrets

erence alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose oth

r contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals sti

ute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still main

he identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the

erence alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose oth

r contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals sti

ute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still main

he identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the

epositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows: From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (hereinafter, "Petitioners"), at his mansion in Palm Beac

re as follows: From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls

er, "DE 407" at 1 1.) Because EFTA00010507 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 2 of 33 Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and others, they commit

ern about "the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territori

epositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows: From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 ( hereinafter, "Petitioners"), at his mansion in Palm Bea

re as follows: From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls

er, "DE 407" at 9 1.) Because EFTA00027666 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 2 of 33 Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and others, they commit

ern about "the effect of taking the position that Mr. Epstein's house is in the special maritime and territori

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

Defining the Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 666, 46 Colum. JE. & Soc. Probs. 207, 237-45 (2012) (arguing for br

ition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 1. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of intersta

ot heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interpret it "liber