Epstein Secrets

counsel, the settlement conference to be convened in this matter. The right to participate in the settlement conference flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy stage of these proceedings to advocate for why the remedy in this case—to

the settlement conference flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. While according due respect to Judge Marra's prior opinions indic

minated: per ill Order terminating 12 MOTION to Seal (bs) (Entered: 07/15/2008) 07/17/2008 15 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing held on 7/11/2008 before Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Court Reporter: Victoria Aiello- phone number 954-467-8204 32 pages. (abd) (Entered: 07/18/2008) 07/28/2008 16 MOTION for Limited Appearance, Con

States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/200

Page 18 of 24 further notice. (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 2 134 *SEALED* Sealed Document Supplemental Response Regarding Remedies in Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 134 [raise] res

t touching on remedy. Granting Mr. Epstein, through counsel, the right to participate in the settlement conference is necessary to effectuate Judge Marra's order granting Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy stage of these proceedings and Judge Marra's grant of permissive inter

settlement conference is necessary to effectuate Judge Marra's order granting Mr. Epstein's motion to interve

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still intend to pursue the remedy of invalidating M

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, VS.

t include applicable reliefs. (Is) (Entered: 12/07/2012) 12/10/2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support ofJane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012)

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu