Epstein Secrets

tpawc Stn,. Rawl &AWN, &NNW Polio Serail IhO:rxii MrvnlnrNlu U.S. Coss, Guard US. awrteneta aSwe US Minlak SoNee LIS. Paul Stake US. Scan &Wu US &may Leal Ny Coseor SOPS 04<r JUDGMENT CORM CI Count Myna/ CO Cain CM1d/rolSenknet Cf Ws* Ndsreat DI Dim .IN &down Neweidunekirg MV Mud

OF AMERICA vs. ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. CRIMINAL COVER SHEET 1. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the United States Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes X No 2. Did this matter originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the United St

e came before this Court on the Government's Motion to Seal. The Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government's Motion is hereby granted, and the Clerk of the Court shall seal the Complaint, Affidavit, and Arrest Warrant (with the exception of providing a copy of th

reement). 5 EFTA00617884 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 6 of 11 from contesting liability.; See also United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-6), Exhibit F at 11-12 (detailing reliance of plaintiff

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein

imants due in significant part to the requirements of the non-prosecution agreement that prohibited Mr. Epstein from contesting liability? See also United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-6), Exhibit F at 11-12 (detailing reliance of plaintiffs

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein