Epstein Secrets

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

nd Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. DE188:8-9. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts und

ses. . She had all the information available to her in early 2009 that she needed to contest the NPA and pleas of guilty if she so chose; 4. Judge Marra himself said "there is no logical reason to treat anon-prosecution agreement' which the government employs to dispose of contemplated federal charge

the NPA and pleas of guilty if she so chose; 4. Judge Marra himself said "there is no logical reason to treat

DE 290 at 2), I4 EFTA00188655 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 15 of 20 the Government points out that the Rules of Criminal Procedure lack a provision for adding new parties. Thus, the Government concludes, that no parties can be added here. Id. The Government's hyper-technical ar

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

. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts unde

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

P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the court

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

P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the court

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

implements several provisions of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in judicial proceedings in the federal courts."), and the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not contemplate or permit any addition of parties such as petitioners seek. To the extent that this EFTA00210597 Court nonetheless treats thes

ith it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Once the CVRA action was re-activated

P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts und