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

ention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2

claim. That claim was made by Bruce Reinhart who — like Dershowitz — had previously represented Jeffrey Epstein's interests in related litigation. Reinhart moved to intervene in this case to contest the victims' allegations that Reinhart (a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(B). 7 During the hearing on Reinhart's intervention motion, the Government stood silent about the accuracy of Reinhart's affidavit. Much later, after the Court had denied the motion, the Government admitted that it possessed information contradicting Reinhart's sworn

ention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone' First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir

EFTA00188726 EFTA00188727 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 6 of 10 then. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Reinhart gave "at least the improper appearance" of having made a decision in Mr. Eptsein's favor in his own self-interest, specifically to obtain "favorable

" claim. That claim was made by Bruce Reinhart who — like Dershowitz — had previously represented Jeffrey Epstein's interests in related litigation. Reinhart moved to intervene in this case to contest the victims' allegations that Reinhart (a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating

ention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone'. First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (1Ith Ci

reo «3 Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke. orarag 3 located adjacent to Mr. Epstein's business. And oreo | 4 MR. SIMPSON: Why don't -- oraraa 4 so, now, Reinhart, who appeared to be being paid overs = 5 MR. SCAROLA: Do you want to take a break for orvazas | 8 by Mr. Epstein, and certainly was adjacent to onaer

ourt Records Page 20 of 20 COUNSEL LIST Sigrid Stone McCawley, Esquire [email protected]; sperkins@