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

pel while actions involving the exercise of exclusively governmental or sovereign powers are not." Id. at 411. In a subsequent case, United States' Vondereau, 837 F.2d 1540 (I I th Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit observed: This Court has held that for estoppel to apply against the Government (I) the tra

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

l while actions involving the exercise of exclusively governmental or sovereign powers are not." Id. at 411. In a subsequent case, United States v. Vondereau, 837 F.24 1540 (I I* Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit observed: This Court has held that for estoppel to apply against the Government (1) the tradi

zier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United Slates, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury ro

he Court's earlier finding. The Government also candidly admits that since then "the delay from October 28, 2010 through early March 2011 was due to the United States' efforts to reach [an] amicable resolution of the case . . . .. Gov't Resp. at 46 n.22. 9 The CVRA does not appear to impose specific timelines for v

ring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blal

sovereign capacity dealt with a different subject entirely: when an agent of the Government can bind the Government. For instance, United States v. Vondereau, 837 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1988), held that a government loan officer had no authority to waive payment on a government loan. The reason was that ag

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

l while actions involving the exercise of exclusively governmental or sovereign powers are not." Id. at 411. In a subsequent case, United States v. Vondereau, 837 F.2d 1540 (11t Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit observed: This Court has held that for estoppel to apply against the Government (1) the tradi

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

el while actions involving the exercise of exclusively governmental or sovereign powers are not." Id. at 411. In a subsequent case, United States v. Vondereau , 837 F.2d 1540 (11 ih Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit observed: This Court has held that for estoppel to apply against the Government (1) the tr

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

l while actions involving the exercise of exclusively governmental or sovereign powers are not." Id. at 411. In a subsequent case, United States v. Vondereau, 837 F.2d 1540 (11t Cir. 1988), the Eleventh Circuit observed: This Court has held that for estoppel to apply against the Government (1) the tradi