Epstein Secrets

nt to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Dexter Lee reported that the United States does not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Bradley Edwards, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs reported that they oppose th

rmissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un

l met in Miami with the Wilfredo Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Ben Greenburg, First Assistant U.S. Attorney; Dexter Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney; and A. Marie Villafafia, Assistant U.S. Attorney and line prosecutor on the Epstein matter. Without disclosing any informa

to intervene unless requested by one of the parties." Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1983 Amendment (emphasis added). New York News, Inc. v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 488 (2d Cir. 1992). If Reinhart's motion is allowed to succeed, then legions of bystanders will have the ability to intervene in laws

nt to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Dexter Lee reported that the United States does not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Bradley Edwards, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs reported that they oppose th

rmissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un

r. 12. I never teamed any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter. 13. In late December 2007, I had an "exit meeting" with Dexter Lee, the Office's ethics officer. As part of that meeting, Mr. Lee reviewed with me the Department of Justice's post-employment restrictions. Based on

ermissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News'. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication of the un