Epstein Secrets

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 tC i t wi

n to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders. 7) The disclosure of the sea

Bad Fat OOR: 0 Bad Fort Vacated Cl Recalled 0 Bo e 0 See Below Ott: OSp Coml Disch /Revoked/Reinstated 0 Previous Bond Reinstated, if B a Rooker OS0R:Disch/Revoka/ ' -` ed 0 State failed to file charges 13,16kaseci O.R. / S.O.R. 0 Deft , _ Indigent Evaluation for: 0 Drug Cl Pre O Referr

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

e induced in pan by the Non-Prosecution Agreement - such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See. e.g., Casale v. Tillman. 558 F.3d 1258. 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell. 80 F.3d 464. 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFT

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

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

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4

oe No. 2 v. United States, Case No. 08- 80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that disclosu