Epstein Secrets

ose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 1410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005X"The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote p

ely confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such documents." Id. To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a "m

he obvious congressional purpose of giving victims the "right to participate in the system." 150 CoNG. REC. 54263 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein), III. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN 28 U.S.C. § 2401(A) DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CVRA ENFORCEMENT ACTION. The Government next resorts to a c

orcement proceeding because it is not a "civil action" against the Government. To be sure, this Court has determined that convenience dictates that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the general course of this proceeding." See DE 257 at 3. But that procedural determination does not alter the substance of this ca

oo busy to care enough ... and by a court system that simply did not have a place for them." 150 CoNG. REC. S4262 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein). To remedy this problem, Congress gave victims "the simple right to know what is going on, to participate in the process where the information tha

we are also writing to ask for your non-opposition to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4's motion to intervene in the case. As you know, Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention on two grounds: Mandatory intervention is allowed where a putative intervenor "claims an inter relating to the . . .

ose of the rules is to encourage plea bargaining, and rules "creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote

ely confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the countervailing policies of liberal discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure against maintaining the confidentiality of such documents." W. To achieve that balance, courts in the Second Circuit have developed a "mo

he obvious congressional purpose of giving victims the "right to participate in the system." 150 CONG. REC. S4263 (Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Feinstein), III. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN 28 U.S.C. § 2401(A) DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CVRA ENFORCEMENT ACTION. The Government next resorts to a c

orcement proceeding because it is not a "civil action" against the Government. To be sure, this Court has determined that convenience dictates that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the general course of this proceeding." See DE 257 at 3. But that procedural determination does not alter the substance of this ca