Epstein Secrets

LORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed Pla

d allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and settlement negotiation letter that Epstein's defense lawyers sent to the government. The quote, in its entirety, is five or six words. The quote is redacted from the public filing but it is

TES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

ar tactics before. In prior civil litigation with Mr. Epstein, one of plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Edwards, throug

es may be discoverable, negotiations are rarely admissible as evidence at trial. See, e.g., hi re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computes; Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing district court for admitting settlement agreement at trial); Apple, Inc. v. Sa

LAW Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal R

ernment in September, 2007. Under that agreement, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felony offenses and ser

rvenors. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26.1, respectfully move this Court for the entry a Protective Confid

ROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison sentence and a term of community control probation. The agreement, with which he has f

Inc., No. 2:05cvl W.D. ( N.C. Sept. 12, 2006), 2006 U.S. Dist. (continued...) -5- EFTA00605755 rarely admissible as evidence at trial, see, e.g, LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computes; Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing district court for admitting settlement agreement at trial); Apple, Inc. v. S

FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs= lawyers filed P

lawyers and parties in this case are already bound by a Protective Confidentiality Order issued by this Court on September 21, 2014, finding that AEpstein has shown good cause to prevent potential dissemination of the correspondence between the government and the intervenor to the press for the purpos

TATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

ar tactics before. In prior civil litigation with Mr. Epstein, one of plaintiffs= lawyers, Mr. Edwards, throug

mes may be discoverable, negotiations are rarely admissible as evidence at trial. See, e.g., In re MSTG, Inc, 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc, 694 F.3d 51, 78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing district court for admitting settlement agreement at trial); Apple, Inc. v. Sa