EFTA00606588Set 9
2015-04-1516p4,884w
U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated
victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution
agreement between the Government ... arguments that the
U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys
opposed the motion and sought a protective order, arguing that "case ... between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE
190 at 2).
Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit Court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00606588.pdf
EFTA01203757Set 9
2015-04-1516p4,884w
U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated
victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution
agreement between the Government ... arguments that the
U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys
opposed the motion and sought a protective order, arguing that "case ... between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE
190 at 2).
Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit Court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01203757.pdf
EFTA00674416Set 9
2015-04-1516p4,884w
U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated
victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution
agreement between the Government ... arguments that the
U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys
opposed the motion and sought a protective order, arguing that "case ... between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE
190 at 2).
Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit Court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00674416.pdf
EFTA01196980Set 9
2015-04-1516p4,883w
U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated
victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution
agreement between the Government ... arguments that the
U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights." (Id. at 5, 6). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys
opposed the motion and sought a protective order, arguing that "case ... between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE
190 at 2).
Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit Court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01196980.pdf
EFTA01132524Set 9
2015-02-0212p3,148w
PALM BEACH POST AND PALM BEACH DAILY NEWS'
MOTION TO INTERVENE TO OPPOSE INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. 261)
The Palm Beach Post ... whether the Plaintiffs were afforded their rights under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act notwithstanding Intervenor Epstein's wealth and access to influential legal
representation. As such, the evidence will bear ... grounds proffered by Epstein and other
intervenors (Doc. 254), the Court granted in part Intervenor Epstein's motion for a
discovery protective order. (See Doc. 255.) However, in connection with
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01132524.pdf
EFTA00592682Set 9
2015-02-0212p3,145w
PALM BEACH POST AND PALM BEACH DAILY NEWS'
MOTION TO INTERVENE TO OPPOSE INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. 261)
The Palm Beach Post ... whether the Plaintiffs were afforded their rights under the Crime Victims'
Rights Act notwithstanding Intervenor Epstein's wealth and access to influential legal
representation. As such, the evidence will bear ... grounds proffered by Epstein and other
intervenors (Doc. 254), the Court granted in part Intervenor Epstein's motion for a
discovery protective order. (See Doc. 255.) However, in connection with
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00592682.pdf
EFTA01728788Set 10
2007-07-2522p3,288w
opportunity to respond to the issue raised by
EFTA01728790
in footnote 3 of Intervenor Epstein's Reply, counsel asserts that, if "the Court were to sustain the
government's standing ... would oppose such a motion on
timeliness grounds.
2. In the Reply filed by Intervenor Epstein, counsel asserts that "simple possession of
the physical containers [the computers ... emphasis in original). The United States relies upon the arguments in its Response to Intervenor
Epstein's Motion to Quash and the information contained in the Ex Parte Affidavits
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01728788.pdf
EFTA00234914Set 9
2007-09-188p1,337w
appear before
the grand jury on September 18, 2007. However, in footnote 3 of Intervenor Epstein's Reply,
counsel asserts that, if "the Court were to sustain the government ... oppose such a motion on timeliness grounds.
EFTA00234916
2. In the Reply filed by Intervenor Epstein, counsel asserts that "simple possession
of the physical containers [the computers ... emphasis in original). The United States relies upon the
arguments in its Response to Intervenor Epstein's Motion to Quash and the information contained in the Er Pane
Affidavits
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00234914.pdf
EFTA01072032Set 9
2013-07-1242p9,971w
district court 's order
were made by intervenor attorneys on behalf of their client, intervenor Epstein, as part
of a full, open, and frank negotiation with government counsel directed toward
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01072032.pdf
EFTA01098125Set 9
2013-06-1821p6,496w
Court's order were made by
intervenor attorneys on behalf of their client, intervenor Epstein, as part of a fill, open, and frank
negotiation with government counsel directed toward resolving
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01098125.pdf
EFTA00211802Set 9
2007-09-184p1,528w
appear before the grand jury on September 18, 2007.
However, in footnote 3 of Intervenor Epstein's Reply, counsel asserts that, if "the Court were to sustain the
government ... would oppose such a motion on timeliness grounds.
2. In the Reply filed by Intervenor Epstein, counsel asserts that "simple possession of the physical
containers [the computers ... emphasis in original). The United States
relies upon the arguments in its Response to Intervenor Epstein's Motion to Quash and the information contained
in the Ex Pane Affidavits
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00211802.pdf