Epstein Secrets

ng lawsuit is pending in federal court, aimed at vaathelederal-plea_ag on the grounds that it violated victims' rights.(ia7) On April 7, 2015, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the allegations made by alleged victim aigainst Prince Andrew had no bearing on the lawsuit by alleged victims seekinj to reopen Epstei

the record.D34We Marra made no ruling as to whether claims by Roberts are true or false. Though he did not allow Jane Does 3 and 4 to join the suit, Marra specifically said that Roberts may later give evidence when the case comes to court:fi38) On February 21, 2019, in the case of Two Jane Does v. Uni

iour towards the daughter from birth and following the event of the sons sexual interest in the daughter / sister Pattern of behaviour of other son Matthews who sided with all other family mem- bers against the sister, the to ,eirti aughter and had a close relatiath r, the targeted victim prior to the

in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex.

v. Scalese, 799 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (issues regarding the intent of the parties could not be decided on summary judgment). See also Matthews v. Storgion, 335 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (genuine issue of material 25 EFTA00808050 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502

rts.4biEL. -1- litclgco a • (A-Wdsta,, kAr, mArra 1/4-riumets imuvvol, Ikea :NW la- Eon alter, r

, r S Johnson, sh Marcus, E Naranjo, a $ Perez. C Pipkin, L Rivera, cS Soon, d S Thomas. A Watsom, C rarguaun, a Grijakia. r5 Keatins, M Matthews. A NoeLen, Y Porlaza, A Reyes. d 5 Rodriguez, C Shafer. s S Tones. C West, rs SICK LEAVE Alvarado. A Hope, 0 Rodriguez. .1 %nib, S Leath

volves the narrow issue of whether Defendant defamed two lawyers. Defendant’s subpoena is both unreasonable and oppressive and should be quashed. See Matthews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 2. The Court Should Quash The Subpoena In Its Entirety, But At A Minimum, It Should Severely Limit

ral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking s

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC