was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA 's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at 1¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was) an orchestrated decision (between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein) to d

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The -Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

HNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution. (DE 41). On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an Order administratively closing this case in light of related

overnment could always find a way to indict Mr. Epstein even well after he completed the sentence required of him under the NPA. See United States' Response to Court's Order Requesting Position on Defendant's Motion to Stay, fn. 5, pp. 14-15. Moreover, Ms. Villafana served written notice on Mr. Epstein's counsel t

INSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution. (DE 41). On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an Order administratively closing this case in light of related