Epstein Secrets

performing its part of the bargain, due process prevents the government from making this determination and nullifying the agreement unilaterally. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 131 Criminal Law 4C=042.5(3) 110k42.5(3) Most Cited Cases (Formerly I 1 Ok42) 131 Criminal Law €=.42.7(2) I I 0k42.7(2) Most Cit

review Castaneda's claim of breach of a nonprosecution agreement de novo. [FN241 FNI7. United States v. Moulder, 141 F.3d 568, 571 (5th Cir.1998); United Slates v. Rallis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1409 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir.1992); United Stales v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352, 354

each by clear and convincing evid- ence). F1122. See Packwood, 848 F.2d at 1011; Tarrant, 730 F.Supp. at 32. F1423. Packwood, 848 F.2d at 1011; United Stales v. Calabrese, 645 F.2d 1379, 1390(10th Cir.I981). FN24. Moulder, 141 F.3d at 571; Price, 95 F.3d at 367; United States v. Laday, 56 F.3d 24, 26 (

nited States Attorney's Office (USAO), along with Defendant, has strongly opposed making the NPA public. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is Respondent United States of America's Opposition To Victims' Motion To Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement, dated October 8, 2008, [DE 29], also filed in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2,

further. Petitioners have no legal right to disclose the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision. After the United States' response, Exhibit C, this Court entered its Order, Exhibit B, agreeing with the United States' position and maintaining the confidentiality of the N

. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt T. aka City, UT 84112 Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 08- Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 ch, FL 33401 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Scatty Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm

ce in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confident

iosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?3 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out)

oom 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F [email protected] Counselfor·Plaintiff in Rel

nited States Attorney's Office (USAO), along with Defendant, has strongly opposed making the NPA public. Attached as Exhibit C hereto is Respondent United States of America's Opposition To Victims' Motion To Unseal Non- Prosecution Agreement, dated October 8, 2008, [DE 29], also filed in In Re: Jane Does 1 and 2,

further. Petitioners have no legal right to disclose the Agreement to third parties, or standing to challenge the confidentiality provision. After the United States' response, Exhibit C, this Court entered its Order, Exhibit B, agreeing with the United States' position and maintaining the confidentiality of the N

Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 LO-COIMSEIJOT 1-70:17111ff e Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Kath

luding alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limi

Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia©bellsouth.net Counsel .for:Plaintiff in R

orida. 5. I served as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, where I researched and evaluated biological and

l for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Be

o Robert Josefsberg, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, PA 25 W FLAGLER STREET, STE 800 MIAMI, FL 33131 48' Lesley Groff c/o Mike Miller 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 49. Dave Rogers c/o Bruce Reinhart 505 S. Flagler Drive, Ste 300 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 50. c/o Adam Horowitz FARMER,

hip role played by Edwards in the prosecution of civil claims against Epstein and the propriety of Edwards' actions. 23 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 2-3 Expected to testify about the malicious prosecution elements of absence of probab

n FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al Page 4 presumptively competent to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States.'" Id, and cases cited therein. Significantly, in order to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over a federal cause of action, Congress must,

in the manner pecified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this day of g µ , 2009: Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 33401 west Palm Beach FL Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.

aw for solicitation of minors for prostitution." What is actually alleged in par. 15 is the following: "Defendant EPSTEIN has made an agreement with the United States Attorney's Office to not contest liability for claims brought exclusively 'See also Bray & Gillespie Management LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co. 2008 WL 48

g generated by CM/ECF on this irday of 2009: EFTA00222871 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 Garcia Law Firm, P.A. FL 33401 aa,bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq.

itle 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 33. Specifically, Defendant Epstein: (a) knowin

se 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 11 of 11 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 F isidrogarcia(a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. A