Back to Network
8
Shared Docs
8
Same-Page
12 / 8
Mentions
Document Mentions (8 shared documents)
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
n FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (li ' Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
on FLSD Docket 09, )08 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11'h Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
n FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place, See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
Sponsored
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
n FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h
of the protective order barring them front publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown'); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim
he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (86)
Entities connected to both the United States Government and Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON263 w/ the·13 w/ Alexander
Bradley Edwards
PERSON84 w/ the·11 w/ Alexander
United States
LOCATION88 w/ the·5 w/ Alexander
George W. Bush
PERSON84 w/ the·4 w/ Alexander
Alan Dershowitz
PERSON76 w/ the·11 w/ Alexander
Kenneth Marra
PERSON73 w/ the·12 w/ Alexander
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON60 w/ the·13 w/ Alexander
Paul Cassell
PERSON58 w/ the·8 w/ Alexander
LB
Leon Black
PERSON56 w/ the·2 w/ Alexander
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON43 w/ the·13 w/ Alexander
the Southern District
LOCATION50 w/ the·5 w/ Alexander
JG
Jack Goldberger
PERSON41 w/ the·8 w/ Alexander
Alexander Acosta
PERSON38 w/ the·5 w/ Alexander
Julie K. Brown
PERSON38 w/ the·3 w/ Alexander
RC
Robert D. Critton
PERSON29 w/ the·8 w/ Alexander
Prince Charles
PERSON31 w/ the·3 w/ Alexander
Southern District
LOCATION24 w/ the·3 w/ Alexander
Salt Lake City
LOCATION18 w/ the·7 w/ Alexander
Palm Beach County
LOCATION22 w/ the·3 w/ Alexander
Jacksonville
LOCATION17 w/ the·7 w/ Alexander