Epstein Secrets

dure do not allow them to intervene as parties to a prosecution." In re Amy Unknown, F.3d 2011 WL 988882 at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2011). See also United Stases' Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46, *Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 was adopted on April 23, 2008 and made effective on December 1, 2008. While this was after most

3/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES I JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDI

he agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

d the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States' BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reasoned that because § 3771(d)(3) provided for the assertion of CVRA rights "in the district c

cution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court."), and United States. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8i° Cir. 1977)("This was not a traditional plea bargain arrangement in which the trial judge was a participant. Rather, it wa

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

ecified in paragraphs (fXI) (i) through (f)(l)(iv) of this section, e.g., as when a former employee directs remarks to an employee representing the United Slates as a party or intervenor in a Federal or non-Federal judicial proceeding. A Conner employee does not direct his communication or appearance to a bys

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States v. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United St

ution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court"), and United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (13th Cir. 1977rThis was not a traditional plea bargain arrangement in which the trial judge was a participant. Rather, it was

employee as the source of the information. (2) Appearance. A former employee makes an appearance when he is physically present before an employee of the United Slates, in either a formal or informal setting. Although an appearance also may be accompanied by certain communications, an appearance need not involve an

id not participate as a Government employee. Example 7 to paragraph (hX2): An employee of the Department of State participated in the development of the United States' position with respect to a proposed treaty with a foreign government concerning transfer of ownership with respect to a parcel of real property and

esolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that "See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United Stat

cution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court"), and United States'. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (13th Cir. 1977rThis was not a traditional plea bargain arrangement in which the trial judge was a participant. Rather, it was

IV-MARRAMOHNSON EFTA00208068 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 33 of 54 The district court found that the United States' admission that Dr. Jackson was an employee was not a judicial admission, because "[w]hether Dr. Jackson was a federal employee under the FTCA appea

. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. me, petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications

tion agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court."), and United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8ih Cir. 1977)("This was not a traditional plea bargain arrangement in which the trial judge was a participant. Rather, it wa

tes. Id. at *5. 32 EFTA00078866 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 33 of 54 The district court found that the United States' admission that Dr. Jackson was an employee was not a judicial admission, because "[w]hether Dr. Jackson was a federal employee under the FTCA appea

. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. me, petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications

ution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court"), and United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8ih Cir. 1977)("This was not a traditional plea bargain arrangement in which the trial judge was a participant. Rather, it wa

concede that neither Jane Doe I nor Jane Doe 2 were victims of the crimes to which Epstein entered guilty pleas to on June 30, 2008. D.E. 416 at 40. The United States was not a party to the state court criminal proceeding against Epstein, nor had it initiated those proceedings. Despite all of these facts, petitio

greement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's inclusion of two events, which both address formal criminal charges that have already been filed in

concede that neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 were victims of the crimes to which Epstein entered guilty pleas to on June 30, 2008. D.E. 416 at 40. The United States was not a party to the state court criminal proceeding against Epstein, nor had it initiated those proceedings. Despite all of these facts, petitio

greement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's inclusion of two events, which both address formal criminal charges that have already been filed in

that "[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion " United States v. Batchelder 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979), and the CVRA explicitly states that "[n]othing in th[e] [Act] shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial

greement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's inclusion of two events, which both address formal criminal charges that have already been filed in

that "[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion " United States v. Batchelder 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979), and the CVRA explicitly states that "[n]othing in th[e] [Act] shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial

greement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's inclusion of two events, which both address formal criminal charges that have already been filed in