Epstein Secrets

er a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that the CVRA "was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United Slates I 5 EFTA00180684 Case 9:08-ov-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 6 of 10 Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 1342 (D. Ut

thers. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective

place nee supplement the filing and service of pleadinset or other papers a by local nolcsof cant. This form, approved by iheJudklal Contaeneeor the Uniled Sates in September 1974, Is rewired for the use or the Clerk theolyil e cad dwa. IS CI INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERS( Of THE FOAMS NOTICE: Altorneys MUST In

ncluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.)

ached to this Notice as Exhibit A, and Edwards' clients' Appellee Brief filed in that case, attached to this Notice as Exhibit B. In Jane Doe No. 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Epstein's former counsel had waived the work- product privilege with respect to documents sought by Ed

F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the common goal of reaching a quick settlement, the United States was undoubtedly adverse to Epstein during its investigation of him for federal offenses, and the intervenors' disclosure of their work product waiv

s been furnished to the attorneys listed on the Service List below on August 2018, through the Court's e-filing portal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1). LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 930 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 o fax] By: Is/ Scott J. Link Kara

ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY S IMMEDIATELY AT: To: Company: Fax #: Direct #: linked Stales Attorney's Office CC: Company: Fax #: Direct #: t Inited States Attorney's Office From: Date: PageswIcover. Fax #: Direct #: Jay P. Leitowitz August 22, 2008 3 Message: EFTA00183577 "PM91-11,111 04 Ari

osta United States Attorney By Assistant United United States Attorney cc: Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183564 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile: August 22, 2008

I mean, what ie the I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notioe pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what pre)udicm is there? What house Is burning doom if I say okay. State end defense, go ahead and expeditious

thers. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective

er a victim under the CVRA. It should be emphasized that_the CVRA "was designed to be a 'broad and encompassing' statutory victims' bill of rights." United States' 5 lot 00 EFTA00231181 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2008 Page 6 of 10 v Degenhardt, 405 F.Supp.2d 1341, 13

ncluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.)

thers. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective

ncluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A- 12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.

thers. In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the federal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-3). The United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's protective

ncluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule (Id.)