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

Where is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 5 EFTA00209268 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representatio

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,

uit has said that "Where is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's) representatio

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,

t has said that "[t]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representatio

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

]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 4 EFTA00584631 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (1 1 th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representat

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

t has said that "[t]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners,"Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representation

iv. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (doc. #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims'

d of "common question of law or fact" sufficient to support his permissive intervention into this case. Accordingly, as with the similar motion for Epstein's defense attorneys, his motion to intervene in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case is without merit and should be denied. Alternatively, if the Co

cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not

judication of the rights of the original parties."). A district court's ruling on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) see also AT&T Corp. I. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention h

24(b)(1)(b) (DE #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime

d of "common question of law or fact" sufficient to support his permissive intervention into this case. Accordingly, as with the similar motion for Epstein's defense attorneys, his motion to intervene in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case is without merit and should be denied. Alternatively, if the Co

cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether

dication of the rights of the original parties."). A district court's ruling on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) see also AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention h