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

hat the current [party's] representation 'may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose

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,

that the current [party's) representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal."' Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002) ("The propos

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,

that the current [party's] representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is 'minimal.'" Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose

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

hat the current [party's] representation `may be inadequate,' and the burden for making such a showing is `minimal."' Id. (emphasis added), quoting Clark v. Putnam County, 168 F.3d 458, 461 (11th Cir. 1999). See, e.g., Georgia v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 302 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)("The propose