Epstein Secrets

LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, ■. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. el.I.LULLICyJ LU1 J CMG LUC tuna Janc A-ivy Jacqueline Percz

Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

using CM/ECF. is/Dexter . Lee 31 EFTA00211748 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. ~It Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 3 Attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 Jacqueline Perczek BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSP

G, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. ~It Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 3 Attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Ja

he earlier or later court was misled; and (3) whether the inconsistent later position would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water,. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 25 EFTA00211742 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson I. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (I I th Cir. 2010). In their st

P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

/2017 Page 32 of 33 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (quoting his Nov. 2, 2011, letter to Attorney General Holder which, in turn, quotes this Court's decision); see also Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Crime Victims' Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims' Rights Act Before Cr

quotes this Court's decision); see also Paul G. Cassell, Nathanael J. Mitchell & Bradley J. Edwards, Cri

position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." DE 401-2 at 25 (emphasis added) (citing Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the state court proceedings as the "earlier" proceedings, the Government does n

Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone : (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah* 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: (801) 585-5202 E-

: (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n

Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is p

TATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutio

al acceptance of the inconsistent later position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does n