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

d intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); Federal Say. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.2d 211, 216 (11th Cir. 1993)("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that thei

ent 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 0226;2010 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

n this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows full well, attached to

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy agai

ent 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

Courts have broadly construed these provisions to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Coro. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that (§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy agai

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,

intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); Federal Say. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.3d 211, 216 (11th Cir. 1993) ("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that thei

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,

intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); Federal Say. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.3d 211, 216 (11th Cir. 1993)("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that their

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)(3), 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

s asserted the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition, Mr. Epstein has enforceable private interests in the continue

d intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); Federal Say. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.3d 211, 216 (11th Cir. 1993)("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that thei

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION EFTA_R1_00004151 EFTA01731371 Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) and 24(b)(1XB), that

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 EFTA_R1_0000415

s asserted the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition, Mr. Epstein has enforceable private interests in the continue

intervenor has the burden of showing that the existing parties cannot adequately represent its interests, but this burden is treated as minimal"); Federal Say. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District, 983 F.3d 211, 216 (11th Cir. 1993)("The proposed intervenor's burden to show that thei