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

tiff cannot blame someone else (= ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct, 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

ending, in federal court, aimed at vacating the federal plea aintemeni on the grounds that it violated victhest 1- rtvl A '1 7, ease, Judge Keen*. Marra ruled that the allegations made by alleged victim against Prince Andrew hail im hearing on Melees...ea by alleged ohms seeking to rerYpecnEpsfein'

8) On February 21, sole, in the case of Two Jane Does y. United States, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Kenneth Marra said federal prosecutors violated the law by failing to notify victims before they allowed him to plead guilty to only the two Florida offenses. Th

1%cMANU-3 1/26/24,11:44,OA 6, 4 A ele5E &nail - Marling Rait (1•44 APPONYTMEWS "Pita) aporei , Cor3ThC≤ 11 Gmail boftt (A Paton or Cexi...w.- Cabot:ic it.) vlcrttiS Houle RF TRAtastAta.icAIS victim ts-nn-tAe,- DeNT tislAbri 'CO BE In/ fte...urrier-Z,Gry r Meeting peva OftcoT TC SE tent . 2 m

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

e plaintiff cannot blame someone els for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Fe/d & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

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

laintiff cannot blame someone else for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

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

tiff cannot blame someone else ( ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though

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

aintiff cannot blame someone else (= for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. CI Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover damages flowing from their own criminal acts, even though