Epstein Secrets

dual's nonprosecution agreement as a remedy for violation of its terms by the government. See, e.g., Clark'. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 381-82 (2005); Brown'. United States, 748 F.3d 1045, 1068 (11th Cir. 2014). 11 EFTA00211553 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 385 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2016 Page

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still intend to pursue the remedy of invalidating M

83). "'Timeliness' is not precisely measurable," Brown ex reL O'Neil v. Bush, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (1

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

s timely." United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (1 1 th Cir. 1983). "'Timeliness' is not precisely measurable," 2 EFTA00583796 Brown a rel. O'Neil v. Bush, 194 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (11th Cir. 2006), and is "not limited to chronological considerations but is to be determined from al

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu