Epstein Secrets

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(1)(B), that he be permitted to intervene for

ure. If the plaintiffs move to compel production of any materials as to which the government has asserted the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition, Mr. Epstein has enforceable private interests in the continued secrecy of matters which occurred before the two grand juries which investigated the issue of whe

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstein

l v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Mr. Epstein's motion is timely because it seeks intervention

he circumstances which must be considered is 2 EFTA00209265 "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Mr. Epstein's motion is timely because it seeks intervention only for the limited purpose of opposing disclosu

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein has requested that he be permitted

conference to be convened in this matter. The right to participate in the settlement conference flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy stage of these proceedings to advocate for why the remedy in this case—to the extent that the plain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANC

e flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy

t of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d Cir. 2012); Howard v. McLucas, 782 F.2d 956, 959-61 (1 I th Cir. 1986); National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907-08 (D.C.Cir. 1977); see also Catmint) v. Berry, 922 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1990)(district court denied intervention at liability stage

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) a

the stage at which the Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case, as the duties and obligations imposed by the CVRA apply solely to the government; the statutory r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case,

r. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (_. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November, 201

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) a

the stage at which the Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case, as the duties and obligations imposed by the CVRA apply solely to the government; the statutory r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case,

. 1977). Among the circumstances which must be considered is "the purpose for which intervention is sought." National Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Here, the government moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in November