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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

k that physical force against the person . . . or another may be used in t the course of committing the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). Post-Johnson v. United Sta , U.S. 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a court might decide differently. See, e.g., Menendez Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467 (9'b Cir. 2018). Even if not a crime

considered for work release. At some point after the NPA was signed, USA Acosta was recused from the Epstein matter. AUSA John McMillan (still at USA0): Early in the investigation, I asked AUSA McMillan if he would serve as co-counsel on the case. Before I joined the West Palm Beach Office, AUSA M

rate contact with Epstein. (See Exhibit A-1.) One of the subpoenaed victims was Individual #28, who is referred to as Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe' United Stales litigation. When approached for an interview, Individual #28 refused to speak with the agents, and I remember S/A Kuyrkendall telling me that she fe

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY MATERIAL THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the United States' Sealed Application for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and for Entry of a Protective Order. The Court has considered the Motion and find

rview of AUSA Villafarla; and (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafaiia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that AUSA Villafafla's May 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

was bound by its judicial admission that Dr. Jackson was an employee of the United States. Id. at *5. EFTA00208531 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 appear

at 27-32.) With regard to the report of the meeting with Jane Doe #1, the government informed the Court that no report was ever prepared. (DE22.) FSThe United States did not have the opportunity to respond regarding the Order to Show Cause for Lack of Prosecution. F6Fed. R. Crim. P. 60 was adopted on April 23, 2

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCLOSE GRAND JURY MATERIAL THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the United States' Sealed Application for Permission to Disclose Grand Jury Material and for Entry of a Protective Order. The Court has considered the Motion and find

ion with an administrative proceeding conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 United States, S.D. Ha. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials

epare for OPR's interview of (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafafia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably referred to matters o

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

n," to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boles Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was depose

ates, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). The government engages in misconduct and violates due process when it materially misrepresents facts before a court. See United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that the government violated due process and reversing conviction when the government misch

ial discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief Judge McMahon to modify t

tribunal . . ." In connection with litigation filed by two victims against the U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra ma

trict Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Office to communicate his order to all of the identified victims,