Epstein Secrets

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I.1) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MC

vided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was prov

cuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "regaining" a stay in a case . . . where . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623, 6 laNeMaTEin 1059 Gmtro Avon". Sing 340.COttwur Gaon. FLORIDA 33B1 09/1212019 CONFIal53ENTIAL Agency to Agenc

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

For Jane Doe 101 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. 6 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 We

pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCRJWCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds

••••••••••••••••••••• owe... Wei 0••••••••...••• W....MS WIN IMP •••••••• 7$ e1310 Ph. 561.682.090

s pled here. Thus, in resorting to fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff has sought to avoid any application of this otherwise controlling statute. Cf. Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 517847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (staying civil diversity action over plaintiffs' objections on grounds