Epstein Secrets

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) 20 United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1039 (1991) 26 United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1978) 24 vii EFTA00209666 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 11 of 75 United States v. Ross, 493 F.2d 771 (

h Amendment right not to do so. "Stonewalling and delaying," Horowitz said. "I'm not surprised." Horowitz said he has asked US. District Judge Kenneth Marra to order Epstein to turn over the information. A local attorney for Epstein, Jack Goldberger, did not respond to a re- quest seeking comment. E

isclosure will be ordered." Seeking to keep the agreement sealed, Assistant U.S. Attorney argued that the agreement is not part of any case before Marra. "The non-prosecution agreement has never been filed under seal in federal court," he wrote. He also denied that the agreement has been inaccuratel

llabo- rate on Silence Is Death, Unleashed Voices, a book featur- ing the words and faces of 25 Palm Beach County people in the HIV/AIDS community. Robertson, Florida's minority AIDS coordinator in Palm Beach County, and Rollins, a Tampa minister and photographer, debuted their book at a reception Thurs

alleged perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator intervened. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, determined that government had violated CVRA, but after alleged perpetrator's death, alleged victim's r

ct of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, dete

ice to the enjoined party of precisely what it must do to avoid being held in contempt—the party cannot be left guessing. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1311 (11th Cir. 1998). Second, a specific and reasonably detailed order is easy to enforce, while a vague order is not. See Iftnn O

s in LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson; deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23, line 4; p. 38, line 22. R. 809-10, citing amended complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scot

judgment record that is fully developed on the pleadings upon the issue of probable -6- EFTA00612488 cause which presents a question of law. See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 907 (Fla. 2005) ("The key to the application of this doctrine of appellate efficiency is that there must have been suppor