Epstein Secrets

vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order. (DE 261). The once-unopposed motion is now opposed by Petitioners (DE 298) and prospective in

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors h

DER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Pr

he plea and non-prosecution negotiations between Mr. Epstein's counsel and the government." (Id. at 9). The C

order, arguing that "case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Espstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain c

s, and incompetence of public law enforcement officials .... are of vital interest to citizens in evaluating the performance of their government."); Floyd v. City of New York, 283 F.R.D. 153, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (case involving the unfair treatment of participants "in the criminal justice system" "presents an is

vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order. (DE 261). The once-unopposed motion is now opposed by Petitioners (DE 298) and prospective in

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors h

DER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Pr

he plea and non-prosecution negotiations between Mr. Epstein's counsel and the government." (Id. at 9). The C

order, arguing that "case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Espstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain c

s, and incompetence of public law enforcement officials .... are of vital interest to citizens in evaluating the performance of their government."); Floyd v. City of New York, 283 F.R.D. 153, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (case involving the unfair treatment of participants "in the criminal justice system" "presents an is

tness an individual ("Employee-1") who worked for Jeffrey Epstein immediately 35 EFTA00088837 followin

osed testimony concerns the experience of manipulated and coerced victims, rather than the intentions of perpetrators. 19 EFTA00088821 return to Epstein's home for sexual abuse, or why some occasionally expressed affection for the defendant and Epstein. Although Dr. will not testify about these spe

consideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Mino

elationship between the defendant and Epstein. For instance, to the extent the defense at trial argues that the defendant was merely an employee of Epstein's, this photograph is evidence to the contrary. Sixth, the defense argues that Government Exhibit 606 lacks evidentiary foundation, is hearsay, and i

7028954, at *3 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, 'the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.'" Floyd v. City of New York, 861 F. Supp. 2d 274, 287 7 EFTA00088809 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee's Notes (2000 Amendments)). "[T]h