Epstein Secrets

mited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein And Opposition To Motions of Jane Doe 1 And Jane Doe 2 For Production, Use, And Disclosure Of Plea Negotiations by Jeffrey Epstein. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/17/2012) 04/17/2012 164 SUPPLEMENTAL Briefing in support of Motion for a Protective Order concerning Productio

atabase - flsd Page 4 of 24 Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein represented by Jacqueline Perczek (See above fo

- Live Database - flsd Page 4 of 24 Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein represented by Jacqueline Perczek (See

2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of Jane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012) 12 21/2012 M RESPONSE in Opposition re M Motion to Expedite Rul

nt requests and the later-served requests for admissions seek documents and information pertaining to the substance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and drafts of any indictments prepared in the case, which are governed by the grand jury secrecy rules. See Re

ubstance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and drafts

to the substance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel

nt requests and the later-served requests for admissions seek documents and information pertaining to the substance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and drafts of any indictments prepared in the case, which are governed by the grand jury secrecy rules. See Re

ubstance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and drafts

to the substance of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including any prosecution memoranda and

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient