Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Order Denying The Joinder Motion Of Jane Doe #3 And Jane Doe #4 (8/29/26)

Transcript

The Order Denying The Joinder Motion Of Jane Doe #3 And Jane Doe #4 (8/29/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're diving right back in to those
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: core documents, and this time we're taking a look at
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the order denying petitioner's motion to join under Rule twenty
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: one and motion to amend under Rule fifteen. Case number
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: zero eight Dash CV Dash eight zero seven three six
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: dash Ka M. Jaine Do number one and Jane Do
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: number two versus the United States of America, the order
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: denying petitioner's motion to join under Rule twenty one and
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: motion to amend under Rule fifteen. This cause is before
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: the Court on Jane Doe three and Jane Doe four's
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: corrected motion pursuing to Rule twenty one for a joinder
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: in action Rule twenty one motion d E two eighty,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: and Jane Do number one and Jaine Do number two's
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: protective motion pursuing to Rule fifteen to amend their pleadings
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to conform to existing evidence, and to add Jine Do
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: number three and Jane Do number four as petitioners Rule
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: fifteen motion d E three eleven. Both motions are ripe
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: for review for the following reasons. The Court concludes that
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: they should be denied background. This is an action taken
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: by two unnamed petitioners, Jane DO one and Jane DO two,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victim Rights
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Act US Code eighteen, Section thirty seven seventy one d
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: E one. Generally, they allege that the respondent government violated
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult them
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: before negotiating a non prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were miners.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Petitioners initiated this action in July of two thousand and eight.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: On December thirtieth, twenty fourteen, to other unnamed victims, Jane
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: Do number three and Jane Do number four moved to
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: joint petitioners in this action pursuant a federal Rule of
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Civil Procedure number twenty one d E two eighty. Petitioners
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Jane DO one and Jane Do two support the rule
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: twenty one motion. Jane Do three and Jane DO four
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: argue that they have suffered the same violations of their
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: rights under the CVRA as the petitioners, and may desire
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Id at one. The Government opposes joined or under Rule
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: twenty one d E two ninety. The Government argues that
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Rule fifteen is the proper procedural device for adding parties
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: to an action, not Rule twenty one. Out of an
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: abundance of caution, petitioners filed a motion to amend their
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: petition under Rule fifteen, conforming the petition to the evidence
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: and adding Jane Do three and Jane Do four as petitioners.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: D three eleven, at two. The Government opposes the rule
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: fifteen motion as well, d E three fourteen. Among other things,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: the government argues that amending the petition to include Jane
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Do three and Jane Do four should be denied because
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. After considering
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: the party's submissions and proposed amended petition, the Court finds
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: that justice does not require amendment in this instance and
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: exercises its discretion to deny the amendment. Part two. The
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: discussion the decision whether to grant leave to amend a
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: complaint is within the sole discretion of the District Court
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: Lori versus Alabama Court Criminal Appeals two fifty six f
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: Dot three d. Twelve sixty six, twelve seventy four, Eleventh Circuit,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: two thousand and one. The Court should freely give leave
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: when Justice so requires fed Dot r Dot Siev Dot p.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Fifteen a and two. Justice does not require amendment in
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: several instances, including undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the part of the movement, undue prejudice to the opposing
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: of US Amendment Lori two fifty six f Dot three
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: d At twelve seventy four, quoting Foeman vers Davis, three
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: seventy one US one seventy eight one eighty two, nineteen
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: sixty two. In addition to considering the effect of amendment
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: on the parties, the Court must consider the importance of
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a dispute. Six Wright Miller Federal Practice and Federal p.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: Section fourteen eighty eight, page eight fourteen, third Edition, twenty ten.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: with duplicate claims will not materially advance the resolution of
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the litigation. On the merits. See Herring versus. Delta Airlines Incorporated.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Eight ninety four F Dot two D ten twenty ten,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: twenty four ninth Circuit nineteen eighty nine. A Rule twenty
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: one motion Jane DO three and Jane Do four's first
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: attempt to join in this proceeding was brought under Rule
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: twenty one d e two eighty. If parties seek to
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: add a party under Rule twenty one, courts generally use
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: the standard of Rule fifteen governing amendments to pleadings to
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: determine whether to allow the addition twelve Wright Miller, Federal
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Practice and Federal p Page four thirty two, third Edition,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. See also Galustian versus. Peter, five ninety one
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: f Dot three d seven twenty four, seven twenty nine,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: and thirty four Circuit twenty ten, collecting cases in noting
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: that Rule fifteen A applies to amendments seeking to add parties.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: Frank versus us West Incorporated. Three F Dot three d
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: thirteen fifty seven thirteen sixty five ten Circuit nineteen ninety three.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: A motion to add a party is governed by fed
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: dot R dot SIEV Page fifteen A. Rule twenty one
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: misjoinder and non joinder parties provides the court with a
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: tool for correcting the misjoinder of parties that would otherwise
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: result in dismissal fed Dot r Dot siv Dot p.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: Twenty one one. In so far as Rule twenty one
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: permit the bringing in of a person who threw inadvertence, mistake,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: or for some other reason, had not been made a party,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: and whose presence as a party is later found necessary
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: or desirable. United States versus Combank of North America thirty
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: one FRD one thirty three one thirty five SDNY nineteen
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: sixty two. In their Rule twenty one motion, Jane DO
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: three and Jane Do four do not claim that they
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: were omitted from this proceeding due to any inadvertence or
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: mistake by petitioners. Rather, they seek to join this proceeding
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: as parties that could have been permissively joined in the
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: original petition under Rule twenty permissive joinder of parties. As
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: courts generally use the standards of Rule fifteen to evaluate
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: such circumstances, the court will consider the joinder issue as
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: presented in the rule fifteen motion. The Court will consider
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: the argument presented in Rule twenty one motion as if
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: they are set forth in Rule fifteen's motion as well.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Because the arguments are presented in the Rule fifteen motion,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: and because the Court is denying the Rule fifteen motion
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: on its merits as discussed below, the Rule twenty one
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: motion will be denied. The Court also concludes that portions
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: of Rule twenty one motion and related findings should be
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: stricken from the record. Pending for this court's consideration is
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: a motion for limited intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: who seeks to intervene to strike the outrageous and impertinent
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: allegations made against them, and to request to show cause
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: order to the attorneys that have made them D to
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: eighty two at one. The Court has considered mister Dershowitz's arguments,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: but finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: of Civil Procedure twelve f empowers the Court on its
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: own to strike from completing an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: or scandalous mens Fedar siv Dot p. Twelve f. Petitioner's
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Rule twenty one motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: why the Court should permit them to join in this action.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: They argue that one they were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: and two the government violated their CVRA rights by concealing
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: the non prosecution agreement with them d e. Two eighty
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: at three See id at seven and eight. However, the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: bulk of the Rule twenty one motion consists of copious
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: factual details that Jane Do three and Jane Do four
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: would prove if allowed to join this action Idea three
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: and seven. Specifically, Jane Do three proffers that she could
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: prove the circumstances under which a non party introducder to
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein and now mister Epstein sexually trafficked her to several
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: high profile non party individuals, including numerous prominent American politicians,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known prime minister,
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: and other world leaders. Idea three, three and six. She
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: names several individuals, and she offers details about the type
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: of sex act performed and where they took place see
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: id at five. At this juncture in the proceedings, these
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: lurid details are unnecessary to the determination of whether Jane
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Do three and Jane Do four should be permitted to
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: joint petitioners claim that the government violated their rights under
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: the CVRA. The factual details regarding with whom and where
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: impertinent to this central claim, i e. They were known
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: victims of mister Epstein and the government owed them CVRA duties,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: especially considering that these details involved non parties who are
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: not related to the respondent government. These unnecessary details shall
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: be stricken. The original rule twenty one Motion D two
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: seventy nine shall be stricken in its entirety, as it's
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: wholly superseded by the corrected version of Rule twenty one
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: motion d E two eighty from the directed rule twenty
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: one motion. The Court shall strike all factual details regarding
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe three Between the following sentences. The government then
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: concealed from Jane Doe three the existence of its NPA
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: from Jane Doe three, in violation of her rights under
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: the CVRA. And the government was well aware of Jane
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: Doe three when it's negotiating the NPA, as it listed
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: her as a victim in the attachment to the NPA,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: as none of Jane Doe four's factual details relate to
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: non parties. The Court finds it unnecessary to strike the
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: portion of the Rule twenty one motion related to her
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: circumstances regarding the declaration and support of petitioner's response to
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: mister Dershowitz's motion to intervene D two ninety one, Dash one,
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: the Court shall strike paragraphs four, five, seven, eleven, thirteen, fifteen,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: nineteen through fifty three, and fifty nine as they contain
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: in pertinent details regarding non parties. Regarding the declaration of
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe three in support a Rule twenty one motion
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: D three ten one, the Court shill strike paragraphs seven
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: through twelve, sixteen, thirty nine, and forty nine as they
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: contain impertinent details regarding non parties. Chane three is free
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof, should
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: details are pertinent to a matter presented for the Court's consideration.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: As mentioned, mister Dershowitz moves to intervene for the limited
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: purposes of moving to strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: made against them and requesting a show cause order to
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: our attorneys that have been made d E. Two eighty
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: two at one. As the Court has taken it upon
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: itself to strike the impertinent factual details from Rule twenty
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: one motion and related filings, the Court concludes that mister
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: dershowitz intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, this motion
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: to intervene will be denied as moot. Regarding whether a
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: show cause order should it be issued, the Court find
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: that its actions of striking the lurid details from petitioners
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: submissions is sanctioned enough. However, the Court cautions that all
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: council are subject to Rule eleven's mandate that all submissions
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: evidentiary support fed dot r dot siv p eleven b
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: one and three, and that the Court may on its
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: own strike from any pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: scandalous matter fed dot r Sieve Dot p. Twelve f B.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Rule fifteen motion. Between their two motions, the Rule twenty
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: one motion and the Rule fifteen motion, Jane Do three
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: and Jane Do four assert that they desire to join
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: this action to vindicate their rights under the CVRA as
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: well DA two eighty at one, although petitioners already seek
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: the invalidation of mister Epstein's non prosecution agreement on behalf
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: of all other similarly situated victims D one eighty nine
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: at one, d E three eleven at two, twelve, fifteen, eighteen,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: and nineteen, Jane DO three and Jane Do four argue
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: that they should be fellow travelers in this pursuit lest
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: they be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims,
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: resulting in duplicative litigation. D e two eighty at eleven.
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: The Court finds that justice does not require adding new
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: parties this late in the proceedings, who will raise claims
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: that are admittedly duplicates of the claims already presented by petitioners.
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: The Dose submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: Jane DO three and Jane Do four to precede as
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: parties in this action, rather than his fact witnesses available
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: to offer relevant admissible and non cumulative testimony ceg d
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: E two eighty at two. Jane DO three and Jane
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: DO four are in many respects similarly situated to the
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: current victims. The new victims will establish a trial that
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: the government violated their CVR rights in the same way
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: as it violated the rights of the other victims. Ten.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: Jane Do three and Jane Do four will simply join
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: in motions that the current victims were going to file.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: In any event, eleven litigating Jane Do three and Jane
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: Do four's claims would be duplicates d E two ninety
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: eight at one and one. As promised, Jane Do three
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: and Jane Do four do not seek to expand the
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed to
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: being filed by Jane Do number one and Jane Do
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: number two. D E three eleven at five n three.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: All four victims represented by the same legal council intend
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: to coordinate efforts to avoid duplicate pleadings. Fifteen. Jane Do
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: three and Jane Do four challenged the same secret agreement
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: ie the NPA that the government executed with Epstein and
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: then concealed from his victims. This is made clear by
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: the proposed amendment itself, in which all four victims simply
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: allege the same general facts as the Does argue at
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: length in their rule fifteen motion. Jane DO one's original
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: petition specifically alleges that the government was violating not only
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: her rights, but the rights of other similarly situated victims.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: D e three at two. The Court fails to see
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: where the addition of other similarly situated victims is now
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: necessary to vindigate their rights as well. D E two
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: eighty at one. Of course, Jane DO three and Jane
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: DO four can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: the rights of similarly situated victims. There is no requirement
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: that evidentiary proofs submitted in this case come only from
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: the name parties. Petitioners point out as much, noting that
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: regardless of whether this Court grants the rule fifteen motion,
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: they will call Jane DO three as a witness at
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: any trial d e three eleven at seventeen and seven.
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: The necessary participation of Jane DO three and Jane DO
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: four in this case can be satisfied by offering their
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: properly supported and relevant admissible testimony is needed, whether through
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: testimony at trial Cde two to eighty at nine or
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: affi David submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: see id A ten. Petitioners do not contend that Jane
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: Do three and Jane Do four's participation in this case
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: can only be achieved by listing them as parties. As
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: it stands under the original petition, the merits of this
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: case will be decided based on a determination of whether
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: the government violated the rights of Jane Do one, Jane
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: Do two, and all other similarly situated victims under the CVRA.
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: Jane Do three and Jane Do four may offer relevant,
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: admissible and nonccumulated evidence that advances that determination, but their
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: Ce Herring, eight ninety four f. Dot two d at
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: ten twenty four. District Court did not abuse its discretion
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: by denying amendment where addition of more plaintiffs would not
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: have affected the issues underlying the grant of some rejudgment. Cf.
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: Arthur ver Stearn, two thousand and eight w L. Two
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: sixty two zero one one six at seven SD. Texas,
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. Under Rule fifteen, courts have held
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: that leave to a mend to assert a claim already
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: at issue another lawsuit should not be granted if the
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: same parties are involved, the same substantiative claim is raised
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: and the same relief is sought. And as to Jane
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: Doe four, at least adding her as a party raises
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: unnecessary questions about whether she is proper party to this action.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: Petitioner also admit that amending the petition to conform to
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: the evidence by including references to non party prosecution agreements
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: itself is unnecessary, as the existing petition is broad enough
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: to cover the developing evidence in this case De three
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: to eleven. The Court agrees, and it concludes that John
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: Justice does not require amending the petition this late in
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: the proceedings conclusion. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered and adjudged
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: as follows the rule. Twenty one motion d E two
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: eighty is denied. The rule fifteen motion d E three
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: eleven is denied. Intervener Dershowitzs motion for limited intervention d
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: E two eighty two and motion for leave to file
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: supplemental reply and support for Motion for limited Intervention d
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: E three seventeen are denied as moot. Petitioner's motion diceealed
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: d E two ninety two is denied as moot the
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: following materials, or hereby stricken from the record d E
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: two seventy nine in its entirety d E two eighty
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: all sentences between the following sentences. The Government then concealed
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: from Jane Doe number three the existence of its NPA
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: from Jane Doe three, in violation of her rights under
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: the CVRA d E two eighty three. And the Government
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: was well aware of Jane Doe three when it was
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: in the attachment to the NPA D two eighty eight,
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: six d E two ninety one one, paragraphs four, five, seven, eleven, thirteen, fifteen,
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: nineteen through fifty three, n fifty nine, d E three
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: ten one, paragraphs seven through twelve, sixteen thirty nine, and
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: forty nine. D E two ninety three in its entirety,
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: Done and ordered in the Chambers at West Palm Beach,
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach County, Florida, this sixth day of April twenty fifteen.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: And this order was signed by Kenneth Marra. All Right, folks,
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this one. All of
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: in the description box.