UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FGJ 07-103(WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED MOTION The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves the Court for permission to disclose the Court's Sealed Order of April 16, 2007 and a grand jury subpoena related to that sealed order. In support thereof, the Government states: 1. In April 2007, the United States filed a Sealed Motion for an Order compelling the testimony of 2. On April 16, 2007, the Court granted the Sealed Motion in a Sealed Order, which is attached hereto. 3. The matter relates to issues occurring before the grand jury and, accordingly, is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). Under that Rule, the "court may authorize disclosure — at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs — of a grand-jury matter: (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." 4. The Order itself 1 EF
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FGJ 07-103(WPB) IN RE: GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS SEALED MOTION The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby moves the Court for permission to disclose the Court's Sealed Order of April 16, 2007 and a grand jury subpoena related to that sealed order. In support thereof, the Government states: 1. In April 2007, the United States filed a Sealed Motion for an Order compelling the testimony of 2. On April 16, 2007, the Court granted the Sealed Motion in a Sealed Order, which is attached hereto. 3. The matter relates to issues occurring before the grand jury and, accordingly, is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). Under that Rule, the "court may authorize disclosure — at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs — of a grand-jury matter: (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." 4. The Order itself 1 EF
Persons Referenced (3)
“...egoing document was served via Federal Express on Attorneys William Richey and Roy Black. This document was not filed using CM/ECF because it is being filed under seal. Assistant U.S. Attorney 3 ...”
Jeffrey Epstein“... alia, that she was not treated fairly in connection with the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 6. The United States respectfully requests permission to disclose redacted versions of the subpoena ...”
Alexander Acosta“...rementioned documents be sealed. Respectfully submitted, 2 EFTA00222948 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorne 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 ...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
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
EFTA00013905
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it
SUSPECTED MOTIVE BEHIND GOVERNMENT AND POLICE SOURCES INVOLVED
SUSPECTED MOTIVE BEHIND GOVERNMENT AND POLICE SOURCES INVOLVED IN CONSPIRED COVER UP OF FAMIL L MOLESTATION OF TARGETED VICTIM TH H R BY THE BROTHER FAMILY MEMBER ANTHEThra GATION AND CON- SPIRED ATTACK Or rit /WILY I O DEMORALISE THE DAUGHTER, SISTER AND DISCREDIT HER CREDITABILITY AND TARGETING HER WITH A SEXUAL ABUSE RING CONNECTED TO GOVERNMENT SOURCES AND EPSTEIN AND MAXWELL SUSPECTED MOTIVE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INVOLVEMENT : COMMENCEMENT - KADINA • JOHN OLSEN - MAYOR OF KADINA - LIBERAL GOVERNMENT MEMBER • ROWAN RAMSAY - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MEMBER - KADINA AND PORT PIRIE The mother, i= suspected of being sexually active in the community of Kadina as a teenager invo ving sexual interaction with the government officials involved in Kadina John Olsen, Kadina and Rowan Ramsay, Kadina / Port Pine and the overnment officials knowledge of this sexual activity and manipulated by the mother to assist in the family secret cover up under the act of the motive of th
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.