Epstein Secrets

rney Bruce E. Reinhart to permissively intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (DE #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Cour

tervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Thus Reinhar

and seek Rule 11 sanctions for the allegations. But as a non-party, he lacks standing to bootstrap his way into this case via a Rule 11 motion. As the Second Circuit has explained: 3 EFTA00795276 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 05)16:2011 Page 4 of 8 Although the language of Rule 11

ant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. Within months after the non-prosecution agreement was signed, Reinhart left the Office and immediately went into private practice as a "white collar" criminal defense attorney. His office coincidentally happened to be

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

s matter. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Electronic Correspondence with Bruce Reinhart, of McDonald Hopkins, LLP in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Reinhart represented that Ms. refused to allow her counsel to accept service of the subpoena, so Ms. was forced to commence the efforts to attempt to pers

a subpoena to the door, and mailing another copy to counsel of record was sufficient). Cases not only from this Court, but also from others in the Second Circuit, have interpreted that rule "liberally" to allow service so long as the "the type of 7 EFTA00617957 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 160 Filed 05/

. He left the U.S. Attorney’s Office on Jan. 1, 2008, and went to work representing Epstein’s employees on Jan. 2, 2008, court records show. In 2011, Reinhart was named in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit, which accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides, implying that he l

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO