(USAFLS)" alMIN>
From: (USAFLS)" alMIN> To: NIEliSAFLSr alMIE>, Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:36:39 +0000 Importance: Normal (USAFLS)" Hi IN and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on D
Summary
From: (USAFLS)" alMIN> To: NIEliSAFLSr alMIE>, Subject: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:36:39 +0000 Importance: Normal (USAFLS)" Hi IN and There are several motions that are fully briefed but have not been decided: DE50: Petitioners' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (this was "held in abeyance" while the Court ordered "limited discovery"). DE51: Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Provide Violations of the CVRA and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allowed supplemental briefing after the hearing on DE56. The last of that supplemental briefing was filed on 10/31/2011. DE93 was fully briefed on 10/14/2011. The 90-day mark on D
Persons Referenced (7)
“...to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on 11/8/2011. The Jane Does' Opposition was filed on 12/5/2011. Our Reply has not yet been filed. DE121:...”
Bill Clinton“...that leads them to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something ...”
Jay LefkowitzPrince Andrew“...to believe that there is evidence to be found (for example, re Bill Clinton or Prince Andrew) so that they can point us in the right direction. I would hate for us to deny something based on my know...”
Roy Black“...and to Have their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three...”
Martin Weinberg“... their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed. DE56: Motion to Intervene by Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all a...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...k, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz DE93: Motion for Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein The first three were all addressed by the Court at the August 12, 2011 hearing, although the Court allo...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct
The filing reveals a concrete dispute over sealed court documents that could shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Florida prosecutors allegedly gave Jeffrey Epstein preferent NY Post filed a motion (Dec 21, 2018) to unseal appellate briefs in Epstein’s SORA appeal, requestin Manhattan DA’s office (Danny Frost, Karen Friedman‑Agnifilo) initially opposed unsealing, citing C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victim
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct
NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct The filing reveals a concrete dispute over sealed court documents that could shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Florida prosecutors allegedly gave Jeffrey Epstein preferential treatment. It names high‑profile officials (Cyrus Vance Jr., Alexander Acosta, Danny Frost) and outlines specific communications, dates, and procedural steps that investigators could follow to obtain the briefs and probe possible misconduct. Key insights: NY Post filed a motion (Dec 21, 2018) to unseal appellate briefs in Epstein’s SORA appeal, requesting victim‑redacted copies.; Manhattan DA’s office (Danny Frost, Karen Friedman‑Agnifilo) initially opposed unsealing, citing Civil Rights Law § 50‑b and alleged lack of notice to Florida prosecutors.; Post withdrew the motion (Jan 4, 2019) to avoid procedural disputes, then refiled after notifying Florida prosecutors (Palm Beach State Attorney and U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida).
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.