Epstein Secrets

. 1992). Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to the continued specific performance and enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. United States I Haber, 299 < Fed. Aipx. 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2008). Rescission of the non-prosecution agreement at this juncture would, moreover, undermine Mr. Epstein's

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Bl

. 1992). Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to the continued specific performance and enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. United States I Haber, 299 < Fed. Aipx. 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2008). Rescission of the non-prosecution agreement at this juncture would, moreover, undermine Mr. Epstein's

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Bl

ns. Rather than invalidate the agreement, Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to its continued specific performance and enforcement. United States. Haber, 299 Fed. Appx. 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2008). The remedy the plaintiffs seek cannot be obtained and their request for disclosure and use of the plea n

Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2012 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENOR

1992). Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to the continued specific performance and enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. United States v. Haber, 299 Fed. Appx. 865, 867 (11th Cir. 2008). Rescission of the non-prosecution agreement at this juncture would, moreover, undermine Mr. Epstein's re

ted States District Judge cc. All counsel 4 EFTA00177810 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERN Liac, 14-1 \ftPPEAL , Intervenors Roy 1 Jeffrey Epstein

s "not proscribed by criminal sanctions." Clarke further contends he was prevented from presenting testimony, which sup- ported his defense, by Dr. Haber, who would have testified Clarke (1) was not a pedophile, (2) was not sexually aroused by or attracted to prepubescent fe- males, and (3) suffers f

presumption is established, the burden is then placed on the defendant to produce countervailing evidence that forms a basis for his... 7. U.S.'. Johnson, Slip Copy, 2007 WL 171254I„ E.D.Mich., June 13, 2007(No. 07-CR-30292.) ...I3, 2007. Janet L. Parker U.S. Attorney's Office , Bay City, MI, for Plai

1992). Mr. Epstein has a Due Process right to the continued specific performance and enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement. United States v. Haber, 299 Fed. Appx. 865, 867 (I I th Cir. 2008). Rescission of the non-prosecution agreement at this juncture would, moreover, undermine Mr. Epstein's

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black