Epstein Secrets

an re: reply supporting motion to proceed anonymously; review email from Ms. Rasco attaching and re: case; review email from Ms. Sheehan re: Judge Marra's denial of our motion for leave to file amicus; review email from Ms. Sheehan attaching same; review email from Ms. Sheehan re: and attaching sea

and re: case; review email from Ms. Sheehan re: Judge Marra's denial of our motion for leave to file amicus;

ion for status conference; review email from Ms. Sheehan attaching same; review email from Ms. Eden re: same; review email from Ms. Sheehan to Mr. Dominguez re: filing motion for status conference. 30608 Review email from Ms. Eden re: ands General exts with Ms. Eden re: motion; telephone conferences

rental car. victim. A motion may be filed before Judge Marra on the issue of inappropriate contact with and h

island. knew of other gifts given to , including Secret lingerie, birthday flowers, and a rental car. victim. A motion may be filed before Judge Marra on the issue of inappropriate contact with and harassment of M. 3 EFTA00191647 The one recruit whom I have kept in the indictment is Z. She is

he mmunity. See, e.g., Smith, 79 F.3d at 1210-1211 citing United StatesDillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991); Suppa, 799 F.2d at 119; United taus, Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 706 n.7 (7th Cir. 1986); Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 147i-79; United States `Contreras, 776 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1985). nited Stata Hazime, 762

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t