Epstein Secrets

-9£L08-A3-8O:6 asvo EFTA00184986 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida A. Marie 500 S. Australian Ave 4th Floor Facsimile FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: Jack Alan Goldberger DATE:

ocument 362-34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice OTIVI ON BFI tot NOTICE.. IN ACCORD A.NCE Wall TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3509(d) AND FLORIDA L.ANN, TOE ATT `AC DOCUMENT IS TO RETREATED AS CON VIDF,NTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN CONNECTIO

enied that one of these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, that will be considered a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and the United States will proceed accordingly. Sincerely, United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, AUSA By: Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA R

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citi

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ernment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and asso

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search foi that information." DE

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ccess to information against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging ci

andatory for wire fraud only if the government exercises its discretion to seek such forfeiture. See 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a); United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains b

eged information. Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Wor