Subject: Re: Good Morning America Request
Summary
From: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Good Morning America Request Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 03:23:36 +0000 Importance: Normal Good evening, Shah, Thank you for reaching out to our Office. However, as the matter is ongoing we will decline the opportunity to comment. Best regards, Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2015, at 5:55 PM, "Rahmanzadeh, Shahriar" wrote: -1 , To Whom It May Concern, I'm a producer for GMA and ABC News. We are writing for comment regarding the recent motion by attorneys for Jane Doe's 3 and 4 to be added to in the suit against the US Government relating to a plea deal made by the US Government with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. I'm sure you're aware of the motions I'm speaking out so probably no need to go into greater detail. If you could get back to me tonight it would be greatly appreciated so that your comment may be included in a piece that will air on GMA tomorrow morning. Thanks so much and apologies for reaching out on Sunday night. Best, Shah Rahmanzadeh
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE 311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they should be denied. I. Background This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 10 5/29/2009 4:41:55 PM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119- MARRVJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232- MARRVJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380- MARRVJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. EFTA00201180 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 107 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 10 5/29/2009 4:41:55 PM JANE DOE NO. 5, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 7, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. EFTA00201181 Case 9:08-cv-80811-K
EFTA01308033
EFTA Document EFTA01695623
Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22
Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, makes its Initial Disclosures, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A), and state: Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)fil: 1. R. Alexander Acosta Dean, School of Law Florida International University Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall 11200 S.W. 8'h Street Miami, Florida 33199 (305) 348-1118 Dean Acosta was the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the non-prosecution agreement was negotiated. 2. was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened, and the non-prosecution agreement was negot
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.