Epstein Secrets

ng the information that you have in that regard voluntarily, as opposed to us having to conduct formal discovery to get it. As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this case. We obviously would like for that process to go as smoothly as possible and want to avoid be

E DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 7 VS. 8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 18205 Biscayne Bou

ct formal discovery to get it. As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this

y in its response to hearing the District Attorney disavow the reliability of the Board's recommendation, in receiving the arguments of counsel for Appellant, and in rendering its Order as a whole. First, although the SORA statute clearly contemplates that the District Attorney may depart from the Board'

many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never make a downward departure like this.16 A.84:21-85:10 (Tr.). Later, when Appellant's counsel disputed that there were any credible -- much less prosecuted -- allegations that Appellant ever used force, the Court again began compar

ir identity will be indicated by their initials. 6) This Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders. 7) The disclosure of the sealed documents shall be stayed at least until June 26, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the Court wil

attempting to march up 15 the wrong hill here, your Honor. 16 This matter needs to -- has to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matter. Now, at our last 20 abbreviated hearing two weeks ago, I told 21 you for the first time that

to be 17 litigated in federal court before 18 Judge Marra who has already heard hearings 19 on this matte

stlaw. 76912d 389 769 2d 389 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 ..241 389) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Deborah PEREZ, Appellant, v. Jorge M. PEREZ, Appel lee. No. 99.2182. Oct. 27, 1999. Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1999. Following divorce, parties agreed to modification of

F FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defen

in John Doe 6 v. Diocese of Orlando, case no. 48-2005-010138-0, Ninth Judicial Circuit for Orange County, Florida; and an upcoming deadline to file Appellant's initial Brief in Jane Doe v. Florida International University Board of Trustees case no. 3D09-414, Florida Third District Court of Appeals. 4.