he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

he Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule r er eeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

ponse to the victims' motion. If the Government is taking the position that it does not have even a single document in its possession regarding the Reinhart issue, they should be required to state that forthrightly. The victims' would note that this would be remarkable, since the Reinhart issue was speci

ictims wondered where that "collected information" was among the thousands of pages, since none of the document descriptions even contains the word "Reinhart." In its response, the Government says that the "fallacy" in the victims' "reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government's respons

EFTA00188726 EFTA00188727 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015 Page 6 of 10 then. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Reinhart gave "at least the improper appearance" of having made a decision in Mr. Eptsein's favor in his own self-interest, specifically to obtain "favorable

" claim. That claim was made by Bruce Reinhart who — like Dershowitz — had previously represented Jeffrey Epstein's interests in related litigation. Reinhart moved to intervene in this case to contest the victims' allegations that Reinhart (a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

a Sponte Rule 11 Order Bruce E. Reinhart seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

ative for a Sua Sponte Rule ut.t C. scut beeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

tervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Thus Reinhar

rney Bruce E. Reinhart to permissively intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (DE #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. Reinhart appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to Reinhart whether or not this Cour

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

a Sponte Rule 11 Order Bruce E. Reinhart seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are covered by the cri

Answers to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions (RFA's), fl 15-17.4 It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior. See Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 22(a). Yet them is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages o

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(B). 7 During the hearing on Reinhart's intervention motion, the Government stood silent about the accuracy of Reinhart's affidavit. Much later, after the Court had denied the motion, the Government admitted that it possessed information contradicting Reinhart's sworn

claim. That claim was made by Bruce Reinhart who — like Dershowitz — had previously represented Jeffrey Epstein's interests in related litigation. Reinhart moved to intervene in this case to contest the victims' allegations that Reinhart (a former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

out Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and

a Sponte Rule 11 Order Bruce E. Reinhart seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Moti

cords Box W: (Victim 14), (Victim 9), Jane Doe Redwell with 8/3/2015 Doc Production Jane Doe I. U.S. Relevant Jane Doe I. U.S. Items (Redwell) — Reinhart review (file folder), Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005, United States of America's Response to Petitioners' Re

ords Redwell with Epstein/.Phone Records Box 23: Redwell with 8/3/2015 Doc Production Jane Doe v. U.S. Relevant Jane Doe v. U.S. Items(Redwell) — Reinhart review (file folder), Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance May 2005, United States of America's Response to Petitioners' Re

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY(S): Kalland. Denise [COR LD NTC] 250 S Australian Avenue Suite 1400 73 a> fn CD z -< co 3z 0 O . Ea g 0 0 A a> cn Reinhart, Bruce [COR LD NTC] Bruce E Reinhart, PA 250 S Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach. FL, USA 33401 Pike, Michael James [COR LD NTC] Burm

to Response to Motion re12 MOTION to Intervene MOTION for Sanctions OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A SUA SPONTE RULE 11 ORDER filed by Bruce Reinhart. (Reinhart, Bruce) (Entered: 05/23/2011) 05/30/2011 M RESPONSE in Opposition reji MOTION Motion to Supplement Authorities re IQ Plaintiffs MOTION Jane Doe #1

the flight logs related from 1998 through 2005. What was produced at the previous deposition were flight logs from 2002 through 2005, ancl now Mr. Reinhart has agreed to produce the remainder of the flight logs requested, those going from 1998 t11rough 2002. MR. REINHART; Correct. They're pilot logs,