Epstein Secrets

NITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESP

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

NITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESP

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-1292

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-129

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated