Epstein Secrets

overnment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United Stales, Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States' Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These

/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHT ACT AND TO HAVE THEIR UNREDACTED PLEADI

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

respond to the victims' motion for a finding of violation of the CVRA is untimely, as that is when the victims must begin drafting reply pleadings. See United States! Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (nth Cir. 1983) (listing factors to be considered in determining whether motion to intervene is timely). CERT

6) ("Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction"); Waytel United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985) (the decision whether to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review," and "not readily susceptible to th

r Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Assn, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y.

3/21/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johason JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS COME NOW Jane Do

11 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND TO HAV

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

cy seeks to protect . . unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and public castigation that may result from disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000941 EFTA00230765 e•;;S",:%%::: - - • /len" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Pag

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Ma rr a /.1 o hnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' MOTION TO USE CORRESPONDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND TO HAVE THEIR UNREDACTED PLEADINGS

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougla

n to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE51). As explained in the United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act (DE48), and Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accep

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D

n to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE51). As explained in the United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act (DE48), and Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accep

ght of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Doug

n to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE51). As explained in the United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act (DE48), and Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accep

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D

Petitioners [Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2] or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6:2). These sentences offer respondents no solace. Judge Marra made crystal clear that any motion to disclose

ly entitled to protection, as there may have been accusations made for which no indictment was returned." Id. at 218 n.8; see also United States v. Steinger, No. 08-21158-CR, 2009 WL 1674798, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2009) (discussing the "devastating consequences" from revealing names of "those person

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougl