Epstein Secrets

"an express confidentiality provision." In opposing the Motion to Unseal the NPA that was filed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14, 2008 which "the United States was obligated

E DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, vs. JUNE 12, 2009 7 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

ed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Marra of the confidentiality provision during an earlie

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

thout notifying the victims Their case is pending in U.S. District Court in Wesl Palm Beach. The 24-page published opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he ordered the correspondence turned over to the victims. "Sweetheart plea' `We're now going to get a co

ublished opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he orde

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

ral government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (DEs 194, 195, 196). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this Court's orders and lifted its stay on the order compelling the disclosure of the correspond

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

ral government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (DEs 194, 195, 196). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this Court's orders and lifted its stay on the order compelling the disclosure of the correspond

ecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women

erly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crim

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1,

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE N1,

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, aik/a JANE DOE #1,

Gam, rims33133 9 a/ 31$ EFTA00231018 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 08-80804-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE #1,

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from